China brain-draining US [Archive]

View Full Version : China brain-draining US

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 07:10

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html?ref=business

XI’AN, China — For years, many of China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s best and brightest left for the United States, where high-tech industry was more cutting-edge. But Mark R. Pinto is moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Pinto is the first chief technology officer of a major American tech company to move to China. The company, Applied Materials (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/applied_materials_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org), is one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent firms. It supplied equipment used to perfect the first computer chips. Today, it is the world’s biggest supplier of the equipment used to make semiconductors, solar panels and flat-panel displays.

In addition to moving Mr. Pinto and his family to Beijing in January, Applied Materials, whose headquarters are in Santa Clara, Calif., has just built its newest and largest research labs here. Last week, it even held its annual shareholders’ meeting in Xi’an.
It is hardly alone. Companies — and their engineers — are being drawn here more and more as China develops a high-tech economy that increasingly competes directly with the United States.
A few American companies are even making deals with Chinese companies to license Chinese technology.
The Chinese market is surging for electricity, cars and much more, and companies are concluding that their researchers need to be close to factories and consumers alike. Applied Materials set up its latest solar research labs here after estimating that China would be producing two-thirds of the world’s solar panels by the end of this year.
“We’re obviously not giving up on the U.S.,” Mr. Pinto said. “China needs more electricity. It’s as simple as that.”

China has become the world’s largest auto market, and General Motors (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has a large and growing auto research center in Shanghai.
The country is also the biggest market for desktop computers and has the most Internet users. Intel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/intel_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has opened research labs in Beijing for semiconductors and server networks.

Not just drawn by China’s markets, Western companies are also attracted to China’s huge reservoirs of cheap, highly skilled engineers — and the subsidies offered by many Chinese cities and regions, particularly for green energy companies.

Meanwhile the US is steadily losing its R & D edge: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60260/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge

This is very much in accordance with the JCP's theory of market socialism, which has been continuously presented to China in inter-theoretical exchanges:

http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jps_weekly/2002-0827-fuwa.html

At this point various things are several things that China should be wary and that the proletariat of advanced nations can do:

1- China must be wary of counter-revolution, as the JCP notes, while it may bring great wealth for political reasons (since it ends the de facto embargo of imperialists) :

The market economy, anarchical and competitive, is like the law of the jungle, which is the source of greater job insecurity, unemployment, and social income gaps. The market does not have power to control such contradictions. Such contradictions can only be controlled through social welfare services and other social security measures.

Although Lenin made no significant remarks on this issue after the adoption of the NEP, I just want to touch on an interesting historical episode. The world's first principles of social security were stated in a declaration issued following the October Revolution by the revolutionary Soviet government. These principles later had a great influence on the capitalist world in that they laid the foundations of social control of negative effects of the market economy under capitalism.

As long as the bourgeoisie exist they will continue to try and subvert the system, using what political inroads they have made through ending the de facto sanction of private capital against the People's Republic.

2- This is the era where fascists will have the best chance of gaining political power.

Fascism always rises when the fear of socialism is the greatest, right now people in America are becoming paranoid of China. The advanced proletariat must be wary.

3- Global Warming.

The Pentagon has released a study showing that if Global Warming becomes a serious problem China will be hit harder then America or Europe. This fact has almost certainly been taken into strategic consideration.

So long as nothing happens like a devastating war, and the proletariat in the advanced nations increase the intensity and prevalence of class consciousness there is a good chance of success for history's progressive forces.

khad

19th March 2010, 07:37

What the hell is this shite? All it shows is the increasing capitalist integration of the PRC's and USA's economies.

Fascism always rises when the fear of socialism is the greatest, right now people in America are becoming paranoid of China. The advanced proletariat must be wary.

China is at much more risk of turning fascist, seeing how CPC officials are now recruited from the ranks of businessmen.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 08:40

What the hell is this shite? All it shows is the increasing capitalist integration of the PRC's and USA's economies.

China is at much more risk of turning fascist, seeing how CPC officials are now recruited from the ranks of businessmen.

The real, economic difference is that the majority of the economy remains firmly in collective ownership, whereas fascist regimes tend towards privatization.

But the threat of counter-revolution is very real. Remember in the last days of the USSR it was the Stalinist leaders who privatized the economy despite widespread protests from the general populace.

What I am noting here is that it is a good thing the Workers' State is growing via market socialist means. These means demand the state still retain firm control of the economy, the "commanding heights" to thwart the worst excesses of capitalism, but such compromise is necessary for political reasons as it brings in necessary foreign capital for development.

vyborg

19th March 2010, 09:33

I didnt believed someone could take JCP theories for good...they are so silly...
anyway it has a very committed membership

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 14:47

I didnt believed someone could take JCP theories for good...they are so silly...
anyway it has a very committed membership

Well they work. The JCP suggested China go market socialist- China went market socialist and is now the world's second largest economy.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 16:18

Well they work. The JCP suggested China go market socialist- China went market socialist and is now the world's second largest economy.

Great, so the country has wealth. And how is it distributed? Remember that the whole point of socialism is to see that wealth belongs to the workers; naked GDP means nothing.

RedStarOverChina

19th March 2010, 16:23

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 16:26

Great, so the country has wealth. And how is it distributed? Remember that the whole point of socialism is to see that wealth belongs to the workers; naked GDP means nothing.

It's nowhere near as bad as other developing nations, even now the social programs in China are much, much better then those in say India or Pakistan.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 16:33

That's quite an exaggeration.

Most of them are Chinese intellectuals pursuing higher education in the US.

In reality, it's still the other way around, with the US brain-draining the rest of the world.

I just presented an article showing that the US is losing its R&D edge.

Here's another: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/07/7340.ars

Of pocket protectors and unlimited budgets

The Cold War, with its "Pentagon socialism", combined with large corporate monopolies that were expected to provide lifetime employment and pensions, made for something of a golden age for American technological innovation. This is the era that brought us the transistor and the predecessor to the Internet, an era where all the seeds of today's "information economy" were sown and carefully cultivated at great private and public expense.

The great labs of this era—Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and IBM's labs—were places with massive budgets, where the world's top scientists were invited to pursue "blue sky" research into areas with no immediately apparent commercial applications. The facilities were state-of-the-art, and there was no pressure from management or shareholders to do anything but science for science's sake. To be able to fund such a lab was a mark of corporate prestige, and the labs themselves, along with their public counterparts like NASA, were major sources of national pride. For a company like Xerox or AT&T, what it meant to have a blue sky research lab was very much like what it means for a city to host a winning sports team; it was a source of pride and an anchor of collective identity. So much like the science that they produced, these labs were ends in themselves.

You might think of these private and public laboratories, with their hordes of young, energetic PhDs and blue-sky research programs, as producers of a kind of scientific capital. This painstakingly built fund of scientific capital that the postwar era left us was what the later generation of engineers—the fabled "two guys in a garage in Silicon Valley"—drew on to produce the information revolution that began to burgeon even as the Soviet menace was disintegrating.
Dropping out of school and spending the family fortune

It's no coincidence that many of those who went on to lead the information revolution were dropouts from either PhD programs or top-notch undergraduate programs. Even those who finished their doctoral work didn't end up doing open-ended research at the new companies they either founded or joined. The information economy demanded go-getters who would put their energy towards turning basic science into marketable products, and that economy rewarded those who opted out of more traditional research careers with a mix of world-altering power and cold, hard cash. Thus many of the truly ambitious adjusted their career aspirations away from the blue sky research labs where their parents might have dreamed of working and focused instead on the new brass ring: the profitable start-up. Start-ups aimed not at producing scientific capital but at turning it into technological wizardry, and from there into real money—or, rather, into stock value.

Now, I think it's important not to oversimplify things too much, or to caricature anyone. The more agile start-ups played an important structural role in making pure research careers less attractive. It's not that everyone was suddenly lured away from doing science by the promise of instant wealth. The competitive pressure that start-ups and new industries put on established businesses ultimately combined with trust-busting, structural changes in the economy, social shifts, and an array of other factors to turn expensive prestige items like research labs into unaffordable luxuries. Thus it stands that to one extent or another, all of the aforementioned labs have been downsized and/or transformed over the years into places where research programs must now yield commercial fruit.

In today's more agile economy, where workers hop from job to job and businesses spring up from nowhere to dominate an industry in the span of half a decade, there's no longer anything in the private sector like the enduring safety of the Ma Bell monopoly to lavishly support a blue sky research lab. The closest we have today is Google's "20 percent time," where engineers are encouraged to spend 20 percent of their time working on whatever research project strikes their fancy. But 20 percent isn't 100 percent.

With today's short-term corporate focus on maximizing shareholder value by inflating the stock price at all costs, the pressure to innovate comes from the boardroom and the marketing department. Hence all the men and women in R&D have to be able to make a case for the eventual marketability of what they're working on or risk being downsized. We've come a long way from men with pointy glasses and pocket protectors who spend decades just doing pure science on the corporate dime.

There's no doubt that the information economy continues to create a lot of wealth, but I think it's fair to ask if it's also creating enough science to replenish the stock of scientific capital that it's still burning through. I think it's clear that chaotic, market-driven change is a good way to bring ideas quickly and efficiently from concept to profitable product. However, such a rapid churning of the institutional and cultural landscape ultimately may not be conducive to the kind of steady, expensive, long-term investment in fundamental research that produces the really big ideas that somewhere, at some completely unforeseeable point in the future, change the world.

(And no, before you suggest it, the academy isn't all that insulated from rapidly changing market pressures anymore. Grant money is doled out to academics by private-sector corporations who are looking for a return on their investment. But this issue would take up a whole other article.)

And Cuba is now leading in bio-technology: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html

What Cubans call "the Special Period" produced one notable success: pharmaceuticals. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Cuba got so good at making knockoff drugs that a thriving industry took hold. Today the country is the largest medicine exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on its client list. Cuban meds cost far less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's government has helped China, Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south technology transfer."

Yet at the same time as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology one of the building blocks of the economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to intellectual property. To date his researchers have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of them in the US. Now they're setting their sights on the markets of the West.

After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority to find new ways to care for a poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich Africans and Latin Americans seeking cheap, high-quality care.

In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting protein interferon. Castro sent them with money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab's worth of equipment and took over a white stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and third world. Most trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early '90s the business was worth more than $700 million a year.

"And then, almost from a Monday to a Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80 percent of its foreign trade, and a third of its food imports.
Faced with economic calamity, Castro did something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows how - Cuba's economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You'll need 10.'"I think the idea of a brain drain from Workers' States to capitalist countries is a free market myth based on bourgeoisie assumptions.

I have yet to see any evidence for it. In fact most of what I see is the opposite, scientists going to places where they are more free to pursue research as opposed to being constrained by corporate bottom lines. Doctors going to places where they can pursue a career in practicing medicine without having to worry about what some insurance company tells them. The best lawyers I know join the ACLU, even though they make much less money then they would if they signed up as defense attorneys for major corporations.

The most talented people in any profession generally go into that profession because they have a passion for it. Generally only second-rate hacks do it mostly for the money.

In China and Cuba they get state of the art labs that allow them to pursue pure blue sky research and can practice medicine freely. In the US they are always having their arms tied by the "bottom line". Simply put, push comes to shove capitalism is way less efficient then socialism, or a more socialistic Workers' State economy.

That is why China has destroyed India in terms of economic advancement, despite both starting out with similar socioeconomic conditions.

khad

19th March 2010, 16:37

The real, economic difference is that the majority of the economy remains firmly in collective ownership, whereas fascist regimes tend towards privatization.

But the threat of counter-revolution is very real. Remember in the last days of the USSR it was the Stalinist leaders who privatized the economy despite widespread protests from the general populace.

What I am noting here is that it is a good thing the Workers' State is growing via market socialist means. These means demand the state still retain firm control of the economy, the "commanding heights" to thwart the worst excesses of capitalism, but such compromise is necessary for political reasons as it brings in necessary foreign capital for development.
In 2008 China there was a huge scandal involving workers being enslaved in brickyards. They had to call in 10,000 cops from other provinces because the cops and party officials there had all been bought off by the capitalists. Oh yes, the Dengists did so well "thwarting the worst excesses of capitalism" that they brought back the slave mode of production. If warding off the worst excesses of slavery is the best a "workers' state" can do, then I don't know how far we've regressed in the class struggle.

The USSR, at its most revisionist, gave workers far more rights than what exists in China today. The fact that the labor market didn't exist gave workers a lot of leveraging position in the economy. The Soviet Welfare state was far more developed as well, with education and health care remaining free to the public up until the end. I think China's the only "socialist" country to have its literacy rate drop in recent years due to the abandonment of countryside schools, and its access to health care ranking is among the absolute worst in the world.

http://smallswordsmagazine.com/articles/life/brickkiln.html

Of the many disturbing aspects of the brick kiln slavery discovery, one worth noting is that by all accounts the Chinese slave trade is a well-organized and smoothly run operation. How could such an extensive slavery ring exist in a 21st century developing nation? It is certainly possible that China's sheer size and multitude of provincial and municipal governments could hinder the central government's ability to monitor daily happenings across the country. It is also possible that the slave trade has aided local economies in China's poorest rural areas, which would provide incentive for local governments to look the other way.

The following outlines the slave trade process in China:
A given brick kiln owner can sell 10,000 bricks on the Chinese market for somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 yuan. Once the owner has set up a kiln (some are licensed, some are not) he hires a subcontractor to run the operation. The subcontractor receives a very small portion of the income (zonaeuopa.com reports that most subcontractors receive less than 400 yuan per 10,000 bricks). This limited compensation encourages the subcontractor to seek out the least expensive human labor possible.

The least expensive labor, of course, is free labor and so subcontractors begin negotiations with "slave catchers." Slave catchers travel to places where migrant workers congregate and either lure the migrants into vans with promises of well paying jobs (one freed slave noted that he was offered "13,000 yuan per month") or just flat out kidnap them. The slave trade route often commences in Zhengzhou (Henan province), travels to Xinxiang and Jianzuo, which are also in Henan and have brick kilns, then continues to Jincheng, Yucheng and Linfen in Shanxi province. Children and the mentally disabled are also picked up along the way.

The human traffickers sell their wares for about 60 USD a piece. From this point forward, the slaves are in the sole custody of the subcontractor and his henchmen, who monitor them for a work day that ranges from fourteen to nineteen hours.

Heng Tinghan, the subcontractor for whom there was a nationwide manhunt last week, used dogs and beatings to intimidate his slaves from attempting to escape. He also had the windows nailed shut on their sleeping quarters. This action ensured that the slaves, as well as all of their bodily functions, were contained.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 16:58

In 2008 China there was a huge scandal involving workers being enslaved in brickyards. They had to call in 10,000 cops from other provinces because the cops and party officials there had all been bought off by the capitalists. Oh yes, the Dengists did so well "thwarting the worst excesses of capitalism" that they brought back the slave mode of production. If warding off the worst excesses of slavery is the best a "workers' state" can do, then I don't know how far we've regressed in the class struggle.

The USSR, at its absolute worst, gave workers far more rights than what exists in China today. The Soviet Welfare state was far more developed as well. I think China's the only "socialist" country to have its literacy rate drop in recent years due to the abandonment of countryside schools.

http://smallswordsmagazine.com/articles/life/brickkiln.html

Dude nobody said the market socialist scheme was going to be all roses. It is a realistic political strategy taken out of necessity like the NEP or what Lenin called the "Compromise with traitors".

It is necessary to bring in foreign capital for technological development, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons and satellite/computer technology.

It has some extremely negative side effects, and of course the Stalinist leadership is making this even worse, and is the biggest potential source of counter-revolution. Remember Tienanmen square where the workers protested the loss of the Iron Rice Bowl.

At the same time saying it is capitalist, or as bad as a developing capitalist country is harmful and inaccurate. It is harmful because it robs the advanced proletariat of a useful resource, in the form of how well China is doing for propaganda purposes, and the ability of the advanced proletariat to link up with the Workers' State.

Likewise, it ignores how China is way ahead of other capitalist developing nations like Pakistan or India. Want to talk about slave conditions? India has a way worse slavery problem.

Do not think by criticizing China and appearing patriotic you will get the bourgeoisie to be nicer to you. Come a day when Homeland Security is ready to arrest you, or your boss is going to cut your pay, it will not matter a bit how much you criticized China. If anything the reactionaries will use your own propaganda against you for political gain, saying things like "Look even the left denounces Communist China! Even the left can't accept Communism!"

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 17:44

Also keep in mind capitalism is a less efficient economic system. The CPUSA dismissed the Soviet Union as "State Capitalist" for decades. This curried no favor among the bourgeoisie.

And when Russia really did go capitalist its economy didn't grow by record amounts, it imploded: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/09/russia.artsandhumanities

The move from communism to capitalism in Russia after 1991 was supposed to bring unprecedented prosperity. It did not. By the time of the rouble crisis of August 1998, output had fallen by almost half and poverty had increased from 2% of the population to over 40%.

They literally lost half their wealth- half. That is so extreme it is like they were bombed during a war.

China is growing so fast precisely because it isn't capitalist, the State controls all big banks and reinvests 40% of the economy into social programs, state enterprises and research programs. If China does go capitalist you will know it because the economy will completely collapse like it did in Russia.

Dimentio

19th March 2010, 17:44

Dude nobody said the market socialist scheme was going to be all roses. It is a realistic political strategy taken out of necessity like the NEP or what Lenin called the "Compromise with traitors".

It is necessary to bring in foreign capital for technological development, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons and satellite/computer technology.

It has some extremely negative side effects, and of course the Stalinist leadership is making this even worse, and is the biggest potential source of counter-revolution. Remember Tienanmen square where the workers protested the loss of the Iron Rice Bowl.

At the same time saying it is capitalist, or as bad as a developing capitalist country is harmful and inaccurate. It is harmful because it robs the advanced proletariat of a useful resource, in the form of how well China is doing for propaganda purposes, and the ability of the advanced proletariat to link up with the Workers' State.

Likewise, it ignores how China is way ahead of other capitalist developing nations like Pakistan or India. Want to talk about slave conditions? India has a way worse slavery problem.

Do not think by criticizing China and appearing patriotic you will get the bourgeoisie to be nicer to you. Come a day when Homeland Security is ready to arrest you, or your boss is going to cut your pay, it will not matter a bit how much you criticized China. If anything the reactionaries will use your own propaganda against you for political gain, saying things like "Look even the left denounces Communist China! Even the left can't accept Communism!"

China is not criticised by the press because it is "socialist", but because it is a strategic rival - much like Germany wasn't criticised in the British press in the early 20th century for being progressive.

China today is as close you could get to fascism without an actual fascist party in power. They even have a concentration camp system with 30 million people incarcerated.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 18:39

Do not think by criticizing China and appearing patriotic you will get the bourgeoisie to be nicer to you. Come a day when Homeland Security is ready to arrest you, or your boss is going to cut your pay, it will not matter a bit how much you criticized China.

That's fucking hilarious if you think the criticism of folks like Khad of Dengism is because he's sucking up to the bourgeoisie. I'm not going to say I agree with Khad on everything, but... no.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 18:48

China is growing so fast precisely because it isn't capitalist, the State controls all big banks and reinvests 40% of the economy into social programs, state enterprises and research programs. If China does go capitalist you will know it because the economy will completely collapse like it did in Russia.

The fuck it isn't capitalist! The entire reason foreign firms are building factories and investing in the Chinese economy is because labor is so much cheaper and easier to exploit there than in the US or Europe. You think it's a coincidence that American stores are filled with commodities marked Made In China? Why do you suppose a capitalist nation like the US is importing Chinese goods unless the price is more palatable? I'm not wholly against market socialism but the method being used in China is a top-down state capitalist mode - it's recreating the same situation that we saw in the Gilded Age in the US.

You don't seem to grasp that there's more than two economic models - merely because China is not operating under the neo-liberal reforms that smashed the Russian economy doesn't mean it's not capitalist, it just means it's not neo-liberal.

Dr Mindbender

19th March 2010, 19:53

if china turns fascist will that make the CCP the world's first ever 'fascist communist' party?

:blink:

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 21:12

China is not criticised by the press because it is "socialist", but because it is a strategic rival - much like Germany wasn't criticised in the British press in the early 20th century for being progressive.

China today is as close you could get to fascism without an actual fascist party in power. They even have a concentration camp system with 30 million people incarcerated.

Okay what's your evidence for concentration camps in China?

syndicat

19th March 2010, 21:22

1- China must be wary of counter-revolution,

So, the development of a powerful capitalist class, and its sharing of overall power in society with the corrupt bureaucratic class, is such a great thing...for who exactly? Not for the Chinese working & peasant classes.

In recent years there have been between 30,000 and 50,000 "mass protest events" in China every year. (You can read bout this in the China Labor Bulletin and their various reports.) These are of two types. On the one hand there are strikes and other mass worker protests. The second type of protest is by peasants over land grabs by corrupt officials, who make deals with their capitalist pals, to transfer illegally land for some real estate deal or business project.

The protests have gotten too big for the CP police to simply smash. So they try to cordon off the area to prevent strikers from linking up with others elsewhere. But in a big city northeast of Beijing there was a few years ago a mass strike of more than ten thousand workers at a group of factories, mainly Japanese owned high tech plants. That couldn't have happened without coordination among the workers, even tho this is illegal.

the official Chinese "union" organization is often run by managers and is in the back pocket of the dominnating classes.

it's only a matter of time before Chinese workers are able to develop a movement that is so big the CP regime will be unable to put it down.

but the big capitalist multinationals love China right now because the authoritarian CP government restrains worker action in order to keep labor costs low. This is their strategy to entice foreign capitalists to come in and "develop" the country....to sort of share in the super-exploitation of Chinese workers, in other words.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 21:22

The fuck it isn't capitalist! The entire reason foreign firms are building factories and investing in the Chinese economy is because labor is so much cheaper and easier to exploit there than in the US or Europe. You think it's a coincidence that American stores are filled with commodities marked Made In China? Why do you suppose a capitalist nation like the US is importing Chinese goods unless the price is more palatable? I'm not wholly against market socialism but the method being used in China is a top-down state capitalist mode - it's recreating the same situation that we saw in the Gilded Age in the US.

You don't seem to grasp that there's more than two economic models - merely because China is not operating under the neo-liberal reforms that smashed the Russian economy doesn't mean it's not capitalist, it just means it's not neo-liberal.

So what if a product is made in China? Why does that bother you? Would you rather they were made in India? Or Pakistan? Brazil?

I mean name 1 third world country where you think they treat their workers fairly. Or did you mean to say they should be "Made in America" in which case your point is pretty nationalist.

Also your claim that China is capitalist is disproven by:

1- All large banks are state owned:

http://voyage.typepad.com/china/2005/03/chinas_big_four.html

2- All the following companies are State Owned:

http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2963340/n2971121/n4956567/4956583.html

1
China National Nuclear Corporation (http://www.cnnc.com.cn/)
2
China Nuclear Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation (http://www.cnecc.com/)
3
China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (http://www.spacechina.com/)
4
China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (http://www.casic.com.cn/)
5
China Aviation Industry Corporation (http://www.avic1.com.cn/)Ⅰ (http://www.avic1.com.cn/)
6
China Aviation Industry Corporation (http://www.avic2.com.cn/)Ⅱ (http://www.avic2.com.cn/)
7
China State Shipbuilding Corporation (http://www.cssc.net.cn/)
8
China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (http://www.csic.com.cn/)
9
China North Industries Group Corporation (http://www.cngc.com.cn/)
10
China South Industries Group (http://www.chinasouth.com.cn/)
11
China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (http://www.cetc.com.cn/)
12
China National Petroleum Corporation (http://www.cnpc.com.cn/)
13
China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (http://www.sinopecgroup.com/)
14
China National Offshore Oil Corp. (http://www.cnooc.com.cn/)
15
State Grid Corporation of China (http://www.sgcc.com.cn/)
16
China Southern Power Grid Co., Ltd. (http://www.csg.cn/)
17
China Huaneng Group (http://www.chng.com.cn/)
18
Datang Telecom Technology and Industry Group (http://www.china-cdt.com/)
19
China Huadian Corporation (http://www.chd.com.cn/)
20
China Guodian Corporation (http://www.cgdc.com.cn/)
21
China Power Investment Corporation (http://www.cpicorp.com.cn/)
22
China Three Gorges Project Corporation (http://www.ctgpc.com/)
23
Shenhua Group Corporation Limited (http://www.shenhuagroup.com.cn/)
24
China Telecommunications Corporation (http://www.chinatelecom.com.cn/)
25
China Network Communications Group Corporation (http://www.chinanetcom.com.cn/)
26
China United Telecommunications Corporation (http://www.chinaunicom.com.cn/)
27
China Mobile Communications Corporation (http://www.chinamobile.com/)
28
China Electronics Corporation (http://www.cec.com.cn/)
29
China FAW Group Corporation (http://www.faw.com.cn/)
30
Dongfeng Motor Corporation (http://www.dfmc.com.cn/)
31
China First Heavy Industries (http://www.cfhi.com/)
32
China National Erzhong Group Co. (http://www.china-erzhong.com/)
33
Harbin Power Plant Equipment Group Corporation (http://www.hpec.com/)
34
Dongfang Electric Corporation (http://www.dongfang.com/)
35
Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation (http://www.ansteelgroup.com/)
36
Baosteel Group Corporation (http://www.baosteel.com/)
37
Wuhan Iron and Steel (Group) Co. (http://www.wisco.com.cn/)
38
Aluminum Corporation of China Limited (http://www.chinalco.com.cn/)
39
China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (http://www.cosco.com/)
40
China Shipping (Group) Company (http://www.cnshipping.com/)
41
China National Aviation Holding Company (http://www.airchinagroup.com/cnah/)
42
China Eastern Air Holding Company (http://www.ce-air.com/)
43
China Southern Air Holding Company (http://www.cs-air.com/)
44
Sinochem Corporation (http://www.sinochem.com/)
45
China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Corp. (http://www.cofco.com.cn/)
46
China Minmetals Corporation (http://www.minmetals.com/)
47
China General Technology (Group), Holding, Limited (http://www.genertec.com.cn/)
48
China State Construction Engineering Corp. (http://www.cscec.com.cn/)
49
China Grain Reserves Corporation (http://www.sinograin.com.cn/)
50
State Development & Investment Corp. (http://www.sdic.com.cn/)
51
China Merchants Group Limited (http://www.cmhk.com/)
52
China Resources (Holdings) Co., Ltd. (http://www.crc.com.hk/)
53
China Travel Service (Holdings) H.K., Ltd. (http://www.hkcts.com/)
54
State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation Ltd. (http://www.snptc.com.cn/)
55
China Commercial Aircraft Corporation Ltd.
56
China Energy Conservation Investment Corp. (http://www.cecic.com.cn/)
57
China Gaoxin Investment Group Corporation (http://www.gaoxin-china.com.cn/)
58
China International Engineering Consulting Corporation (http://www.ciecc.com.cn/)
59
China National Packaging Corporation (http://www.pachn.cn/)
60
China Commerce Group
61
China Huafu Trade and Development Group Corp.
62
China Chengtong Holding (http://www.cctgroup.com.cn/)
63
China Huaxing Group Company
64
China National Coal Group Corp. (http://www.chinacoal.com/)
65
China Coal Research Institute (http://www.ccri.com.cn/)
66
China National Machinery Industry Corporation (http://www.sinomach.com.cn/)
67
China Academy of Machinery Science & Technology (http://www.camst.com.cn/)
68
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Mechanization Sciences (http://www.caams.org.cn/)
69
Sinosteel Corporation (http://www.sinosteel.com/)
70
China Metallurgical Group Corp. (http://www.mcc.com.cn/)
71
China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group (http://www.cisri.com.cn/)
72
ChemChina Group Corporation (http://www.chemchina.com.cn/)
73
China National Chemical Engineering Group Corp. (http://www.cncec.com.cn/)
74
China National Light Industry (Group) Corp. (http://www.sinolight.cn/)
75
China Light Industrial Corporation for Foreign Economic and Technical Co-operation (http://www.cletc.com.cn/)
76
China National Arts & Crafts (Group) Corporation (http://www.cnacgc.com/)
77
China National Salt Industry Corp. (http://www.chinasalt.com.cn/)
78
Huacheng Investment & Management Co., Ltd.
79
China Hengtian Group Co. (http://www.chtgc.com/)
80
China Textile Academy (http://www.cta.com.cn/)
81
China National Materials Industry Group (http://www.sinoma.cn/)
82
China National Building Material Group Corporation (http://www.cnbm.com.cn/)
83
China Nonferrous Metal Mining (Group) Co., Ltd. (http://www.nfcg.com.cn/)
84
General Research Institute for Nonferrous Metals (http://www.grinm.com/)
85
Beijing General Research Institute of Mining & Metallurgy (http://www.bgrimm.com/)
86
China International Intellectech Corporation (http://www.ciic.com.cn/)
87
China Far East International Trading Corporation (http://www.feitc.cn/)
88
China International Enterprises Co-operation Corp. (http://www.ciecco.com/)
89
China National Real Estate Development Group (http://www.cred.com/)
90
China Academy of Building Research (http://www.cabr.com.cn/)
91
China North Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry (Group) Corporation (http://www.cnrgc.com/)
92
China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry (Group) Corporation (http://www.csrgc.com.cn/)
93
China Railway Signal and Communication Corporation (http://www.crsc.cn/)
94
China Railway Engineering Corporation (http://www.crecg.com/)
95
China Railway Construction Corporation (http://www.crccg.com/)
96
China Communications Construction Company, Ltd. (http://www.ccgrp.com.cn/)
97
China Putian Corporation (http://www.china-putian.com.cn/)
98
China National Postal and Telecommunications Appliances Corporation (http://www.ptac.com.cn/)
99
China Satellite Communications Corporation (http://www.chinasatcom.com/)
100
China Academy of Telecommunications Technology (http://www.catt.ac.cn/)
101
CHINA WATER INVESTMENT GROUP CORP. (http://www.cwic.com.cn/)
102
China National Agricultural Development Group Corporation (http://www.cnadc.com.cn/)
103
China State Farms Agribusiness Corporation
104
China National Textiles Group Corporation (http://www.chinatex.com/)
105
China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp. (http://www.sinotransgroup.com/)
106
China National Silk Imp. & Exp. Corp. (http://www.chinasilk.com/)
107
China National Light Industrial Products Imp. & Exp. Corp. (http://www.chinalight.com.cn/)
108
China National Complete Plant Import & Export Corporation (Group) (http://www.complant.com/)
109
China National Service Corporation for Chinese Personnel Working Abroad (http://www.cnsc.com.cn/)
110
China National Biotec Corporation (http://www.cnbpc.com.cn/)
111
China Forestry Group Corporation (http://www.cifgc.com/)
112
China National Pharmaceutical Group Corporation (http://www.sinopharm.com/)
113
CITS Group Corporation (http://www.citsgroup.com.cn/)
114
China Xinxing Corp. (Group) (http://www.xxg.com.cn/)
115
China Poly Group Corporation (http://www.poly.com.cn/)
116
China New Era Group (http://www.chinanewera.com/)
117
Zhuhai Zhenrong Company (http://www.zhzr.cn/)
118
China Architecture Design and Research Group (http://www.cadreg.com.cn/)
119
China Electronics Engineering Design Institute (http://www.ceedi.com.cn/)
120
Sino-Coal International Engineering Design & Research Institute (http://www.scieg.com/)
121
China Haisum International Engineering Investment Corp. (Group) (http://www.haisum.net/haisum/index.jsf)
122
China Metallurgical Geology Bureau (http://www.chexenb.com.cn/)
123
China National Administration of Coal Geology (http://www.ccgc.cn/)
124
Xinxing Ductile Iron Pipes Group Co., Ltd. (http://www.xxpgroup.com/)
125
China Travel Sky Holding Company (http://www.travelskyholdings.com/)
126
China Aviation Oil Holding Company (http://www.cnaf.com/)
127
China Aviation Supplies Holding Company (http://www.casc.com.cn/)
128
China Power Engineering Consulting (Group) Corporation (http://www.cpecc.net/)
129
China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group Co. (http://www.checc.cn/)
130
Sinohydro Corporation (http://www.sinohydro.com/)
131
China National Gold Group Corporation (http://www.chinagoldgroup.com/)
132
China National Cotton Reserves Corporation (http://www.cncrc.com.cn/)
133
China Printing (Group) Corporation (http://www.cpgc.cn/)
134
Panzhihua Iron and Steel (Group) Company (http://www.pzhsteel.com.cn/)
135
Luzhong Metallurgical Mining Group (http://www.lumining.com/)
136
Changsha Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (http://www.crimm.com.cn/)
137
China Lucky Film Corporation (http://www.luckyfilm.com/)
138
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp. (http://www.cgnpc.com.cn/)
139
China Changjiang National Shipping (Group) Corp. (http://www.china-csc.com/)
140
Shanghai Ship and Shipping Research Institute (http://www.sssri.com/)
141
China Hualu Group Co., Ltd. (http://www.hualu.com.cn/)
142
Alcatel Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd. (http://www.alcatel-sbell.com.cn/)
143
IRICO Group Corporation (http://www.ch.com.cn/)
144
Wuhan Research Institute of Posts & Telecommunications (http://www.wri.com.cn/)
145
Shanghai Institute of Pharmaceutical Industry (http://www.sipi.com.cn/)
146
Overseas Chinese Town Enterprises Co. (http://www.chinaoct.com/)
147
Nan Kwong (Group) Company Limited (http://www.namkwong.com.mo/)
148
Xian Electric Manufacturing Corporation (http://www.xd.com.cn/)
149
China Gezhouba Water & Power (Group) Co., Ltd. (http://www.cggc.cn/)
150
China Railway Materials Commercial Corp. (http://www.crmsc.com.cn/)

3- Social programs: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-03/06/content_6514624.htm

At the same time, allocations from this year's central government budget related to agriculture, rural areas and farmers total 562.5 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 130.7 billion yuan. Other expenditures relating to the welfare of the public include:

- Central government allocation for education will increase from last year's total of 107.6 billion yuan to 156.2 billion yuan, and local governments will also increase their spending. The premier pledged "free compulsory education universally available in both urban and rural areas."

- China will extend the trial of basic medical insurance for urban residents to over 50 percent of the country's cities. China will fully implement the new type of rural cooperative medical care system in all rural areas. Within two years, China will raise the standard for financing from 50 yuan to 100 yuan per person per year, with central and local government contributions to be raised from 40 yuan to 80 yuan per person.

- The central government will allocate 83.2 billion yuan to support the reform and development of health care, an increase of 16.7 billion yuan over last year, with the focus of spending on facilities at the urban community and village level.

- A total of 276.2 billion yuan will be appropriated this year in the central government budget to accelerate development of the social security system, 45.8 billion yuan more than last year.

- A total of 6.8 billion yuan will be allocated from the central government budget for the low-rent housing program this year, 1.7 billion yuan more than last year, and local governments will also increase funding in this area.

- China will provide safe drinking water for another 32 million rural residents and support the building of a number of large and medium-sized methane facilities to serve an additional 5 million rural families.

And in fascist states, real State Capitalists you usually see the opposite:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism_MParenti_CN.html

In both Italy and Germany, perfectly solvent publicly owned enterprises, such as power plants, steel mills, banks, railways, insurance firms, steamship companies, and shipyards, were handed over to private ownership. Corporate taxes were reduced by half in both Italy and Germany. Taxes on luxury items for the rich were cut. Inheritance taxes were either drastically lowered or abolished. In Germany between 1934 and 1940 the average net income of corporate businessmen rose by 46 percent. Enterprises that were floundering were refloated with state bonds, recapitalized out of the state treasury. Once made solvent, they were returned to private owners. With numerous enterprises, the state guaranteed a return on the capital invested and assumed all the risks. The rich investor did not have to worry about any losses; if a business did poorly, the investor would be recompensed from the state treasury.

Just like Russia did when they brought back capitalism, they privatized everything. They didn't have State Owned Banks, or social programs or 150+ major, centralized State Owned industries.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 21:26

So, the development of a powerful capitalist class, and its sharing of overall power in society with the corrupt bureaucratic class, is such a great thing...for who exactly? Not for the Chinese working & peasant classes.

In recent years there have been between 30,000 and 50,000 "mass protest events" in China every year. These are of two types. On the one hand there are strikes and other mass worker protests. The second type of protest is by peasants over land grabs by corrupt officials, who make deals with their capitalist pals, to transfer illegally land for some real estate deal or business project.

The protests have gotten too big for the CP police to simply smash. So they try to cordon off the area to prevent strikers from linking up with others elsewhere. But in a big city northeast of Beijing there was a few years ago a mass strike of more than ten thousand workers at a group of factories, mainly Japanese owned high tech plants. That couldn't have happened without coordination among the workers, even tho this is illegal.

the official Chinese "union" organization is often run by managers and is in the back pocket of the dominnating classes.

it's only a matter of time before Chinese workers are able to develop a movement that is so big the CP regime will be unable to put it down.

Again, I'm not saying the Stalinists aren't corrupt, or China shouldn't move to the left. In fact I think a round of expropriations are long overdue.

I am saying calling China capitalist is inaccurate because there is still a heavy degree of State Ownership and control by the Communist Party. Again, like Russia showed a country's economy implodes when it goes capitalist because the economy becomes way more corrupt and less efficient.

Again recall what happened to Russia after the Counter-Revolution:

The move from communism to capitalism in Russia after 1991 was supposed to bring unprecedented prosperity. It did not. By the time of the rouble crisis of August 1998, output had fallen by almost half and poverty had increased from 2% of the population to over 40%.Or take into account what has happened in former Soviet territories, ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe, Mongolia has a problem with children living in the sewers: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/appeal-lost-sewer-children-emerge-to-a-warm-sanctuary-of-hope-757771.html

The crisis of children on the streets was prompted by the collapse of Communism, which sent the economy of the former Soviet republic into deep crisis. Most Mongolian factories shut and as much as a third of the 2.4 million population descended swiftly into poverty, with a further 50 per cent living on the brink of subsistence. The former centralised social welfare system was unable to cope.once extinct diseases are returning, the Mafia has grown huge, some estimate something like 40% of the economy is in the hands of the mob:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/russian_mafia/70485.stm

Former Soviet territories are experiencing civil war and the return of Islamic fundamentalism, pretty scary stuff. When a post-revolutionary Workers State goes back to capitalism it isn't a good thing. The economy does not improve, it collapses.

In fact the situation in Mongolia is so dire after the return of capitalism that teenagers are giving birth in the sewers:

Other aid workers said child prostitution was a huge problem. Most of the street girls are engaged in commercial sex. I was told of one case where a child of seven worked with a pimp aged 10. The clients are almost all adult men. One 13-year-old gave birth in a sewer. She and the baby survived and were taken into care. The British organisation, Save the Children, which has been working in Mongolia since 1994, says there are about 200 child prostitutes, of whom 60 are registered with the police. The big fear is a HIV epidemic. In one recent survey of 114 young people between the ages of four and 20, 106 admitted they had had a sexually transmitted disease.

http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/2/dark_side_2.html

That's what happens when you bring back capitalism. The USSR and China may have had their faults, but at least kids didn't have to live and give birth in the goddamn sewers.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 21:31

What Would Durruti Do?

19th March 2010, 21:46

I mean name 1 third world country where you think they treat their workers fairly. Or did you mean to say they should be "Made in America" in which case your point is pretty nationalist.

..

how the fuck is it nationalist to want work for myself and my fellow Americans instead of corporations going to the third world for cheap labor? all countries should be able to produce what they need for themselves

i've never met a pro-free trade revolutionary before.

also, you're confusing nationalization with collectivization a lot. just because the CPC has control over industries does not mean the workers do.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 21:47

you realize that they're still dismantling the old stateowned firms? there was recently a mass protest of 80,000 workers in northeast China who were demanding retirement benefits after the shutdown of their state firms (which were heavily concentrated in the northeast).

There is nothing progressive in itself about state ownership. It merely becomes an institutional bulwark for the bureaucratic class. On the other hand, "privatization" only leads to greater influence for capitalists. What's needed is an independent working class movement in China, against both the bureaucratic and capitalist classes.

Okay, but like I showed with Russia, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, former Soviet States now turned Islamic fundamentalist there is a huge difference between a Deformed Workers' State, and a capitalist state where something like half-one third of the populace is immediately thrust into poverty and social programs break down completely.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 21:48

..

how the fuck is it nationalist to want work for myself and my fellow Americans instead of corporations going to the third world for cheap labor?

i've never met a pro-free trade revolutionary before.

Well I'm not a pro-free trade revolutionary, I support China in part because so much of their economy is State Owned.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 21:53

Okay, but like I showed with Russia, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, former Soviet States now turned Islamic fundamentalist there is a huge difference between a Deformed Workers' State, and a capitalist state where something like half-one third of the populace is immediately thrust into poverty and social programs break down completely.

But what does that have to do with China? The wage rate there is very low and the masses of peasants can barely survive on the small plots they have. Moreover, the Chinese CP & party-state bureaucratic class have developed a strategy for a slide into a form of highly state-controlled capitalism. This isn't in order to protect the working class. It's to protect the bureaucratic class. If you "defend" the party-state, this means you defend a regime that prevents self-organization by the worker and peasant classes, and thus prevents them from fighting to enhance their situation.

One really crucial difference you're missing is that there is a vast level of fight-back and struggle being waged by the working masses in China. This is very different than the situation in Russia. Moreover, the alliance between the capitalist and bureaucratic classes has meant that the Chinese masses have now more direct experience of what capitalism really means...something that was not true in Russia and eastern Europe.

What Would Durruti Do?

19th March 2010, 21:59

Well I'm not a pro-free trade revolutionary, I support China in part because so much of their economy is State Owned.

If you support foreign companies using third world labor to save costs, then you support free trade.

Whats so great about state ownership? Especially when said state sells itself out to corporate and capitalist interests while fucking over the workers at every opportunity?

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:01

But what does that have to do with China? The wage rate there is very low and the masses of peasants can barely survive on the small plots they have. Moreover, the Chinese CP & party-state bureaucratic class have developed a strategy for a slide into a form of highly state-controlled capitalism. This isn't in order to protect the working class. It's to protect the bureaucratic class. If you "defend" the party-state, this means you defend a regime that prevents self-organization by the worker and peasant classes, and thus prevents them from fighting to enhance their situation.

One really crucial difference you're missing is that there is a vast level of fight-back and struggle being waged by the working masses in China. This is very different than the situation in Russia. Moreover, the alliance between the capitalist and bureaucratic classes has meant that the Chinese masses have now more direct experience of what capitalism really means...something that was not true in Russia and eastern Europe.

Actually there was widespread protest against the restoration of capitalism in Russia. And as for masses of peasants being able to barely survive, I think China has turned almost half its population from peasantry to proletariat:

At the end of 2008, China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China)'s total population was 1.33 billion, with 723 million (54%) and 607 million (46%) residing in the rural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural) and urban areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area) respectively (not including Hongkong, Macau, Taiwan).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-0) The rural population fraction was 64% in 2001 and 74% in 1990. The annual population growth rate was estimated at 0.59% (2006 estimate).
About 94% of population lives on approximately 46% of land.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-1)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-1)
Concurrent with the decreasing rural population and increasing urban population, China's main focus of its industry and economic activities has also moved from the rural to urban areas.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-2)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-2)
The UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN) has forecast that China's population will have about an equal number of people staying in the rural and urban areas by 2015.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China#cite_note-3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China

Which is pretty progressive.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:04

If you support foreign companies using third world labor to save costs, then you support free trade.

Whats so great about state ownership? Especially when said state sells itself out to corporate and capitalist interests while fucking over the workers at every opportunity?

State ownership tends to be more beneficial towards people in the long-term because the people in charge of the industry have more incentive to place long-term development over short-term gain. They do not own the industry, so cannot just sell it off and are usually held accountable by the Central Party leadership.

Private owners have less incentive because they can simply sell off the industry and make a quick profit. That's what happened in Russia after they privatized everything- all the old bureaucrats just started selling industries off. There is also no way to hold a private owner accountable at all.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 22:07

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 22:10

Private owners have less incentive because they can simply sell off the industry and make a quick profit. That's what happened in Russia after they privatized everything- all the old bureaucrats just started selling industries off. There is also no way to hold a private owner accountable at all.

What the fuck ever happened to worker's ownership? You know, that crazy idea of workers control, instead of workers control by a corrupt state proxy?

khad

19th March 2010, 22:23

In fact the situation in Mongolia is so dire after the return of capitalism that teenagers are giving birth in the sewers:

http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/2/dark_side_2.html

That's what happens when you bring back capitalism. The USSR and China may have had their faults, but at least kids didn't have to live and give birth in the goddamn sewers.
Don't compare the USSR to Dengist China, you asshole. What's so outrageous about the GODDAMN SEWER when Chinese workers are traded as slaves by criminal gangs?

http://smallswordsmagazine.com/articles/life/brickkiln.html

Of the many disturbing aspects of the brick kiln slavery discovery, one worth noting is that by all accounts the Chinese slave trade is a well-organized and smoothly run operation. How could such an extensive slavery ring exist in a 21st century developing nation? It is certainly possible that China's sheer size and multitude of provincial and municipal governments could hinder the central government's ability to monitor daily happenings across the country. It is also possible that the slave trade has aided local economies in China's poorest rural areas, which would provide incentive for local governments to look the other way.

The following outlines the slave trade process in China:
A given brick kiln owner can sell 10,000 bricks on the Chinese market for somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 yuan. Once the owner has set up a kiln (some are licensed, some are not) he hires a subcontractor to run the operation. The subcontractor receives a very small portion of the income (zonaeuopa.com reports that most subcontractors receive less than 400 yuan per 10,000 bricks). This limited compensation encourages the subcontractor to seek out the least expensive human labor possible.

The least expensive labor, of course, is free labor and so subcontractors begin negotiations with "slave catchers." Slave catchers travel to places where migrant workers congregate and either lure the migrants into vans with promises of well paying jobs (one freed slave noted that he was offered "13,000 yuan per month") or just flat out kidnap them. The slave trade route often commences in Zhengzhou (Henan province), travels to Xinxiang and Jianzuo, which are also in Henan and have brick kilns, then continues to Jincheng, Yucheng and Linfen in Shanxi province. Children and the mentally disabled are also picked up along the way.

The human traffickers sell their wares for about 60 USD a piece. From this point forward, the slaves are in the sole custody of the subcontractor and his henchmen, who monitor them for a work day that ranges from fourteen to nineteen hours.

Heng Tinghan, the subcontractor for whom there was a nationwide manhunt last week, used dogs and beatings to intimidate his slaves from attempting to escape. He also had the windows nailed shut on their sleeping quarters. This action ensured that the slaves, as well as all of their bodily functions, were contained.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 22:25

So what if a product is made in China? Why does that bother you? Would you rather they were made in India? Or Pakistan? Brazil?

No, you jackass. It doesn't bother me at all where a product comes from. The whole point is that if China is drawing in investors and manufacturing jobs from capitalist nations, then at the very least it's because their workers are being exploited more than they are in capitalist nations like the US.

I mean name 1 third world country where you think they treat their workers fairly.
Is this the bar we set for socialism nowadays? At least it's no worse off than any other "third world" nation?

And since when is China the "third world"? You said yourself they have one of the biggest economies in the world. Shouldn't they also have some of the highest human development levels if they truly are socialist? Your argument is getting weaker and weaker.

khad

19th March 2010, 22:28

What the fuck ever happened to worker's ownership? You know, that crazy idea of workers control, instead of workers control by a corrupt state proxy?
That's hardly even the point. The USSR's state owned economy was far more equitable to workers because there was no labor market. Instead of workers competing for jobs, it was employers competing for workers. China's "state-owned" sector is still subject to market forces which threaten workers with unemployment.

That and they're continuing to privatize the state run firms.

My position on state run firms is that they can be run against market logic on the path to socialism, or they can be run with market logic on the path to neoliberalism. The latter is China.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:30

I didn't say the protests in China were "against privatization". I said they are forms of self-activity, defense of their plots of land by peasants, and collective actions by masses of workers against especially private capitalist employers, and also against the state. This kind of independent worker self-activity did occur in Russia in late '80s but on a much smaller scale.

Well they were against privatization:

LM: I think it is very important to raise this question, because obviously the 1989 movement was not simply a student movement. It became a nationwide mass democratic movement exactly because social classes other than the students were involved in the movement. That made a major difference compared to other student movements that also happened in the 1980s.

Before 1989, you had other student movements, but they did not become a nationwide mass movement. It's important to understand this social condition.

RW: So why was this?

LM: To give a relatively short answer: Basically since the late 1970s, there has been fundamental change in Chinese society, in politics and economics, especially in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. It began to pursue a capitalist approach of development since the late 1970s.

Part of the problem of this capitalist development is that you have the workers who had enjoyed extensive social and economic rights in the socialist period as a result of the revolution in 1949--and those economic and social rights were fundamentally incompatible with what is required for capitalist accumulation and exploitation. Therefore it was inevitable that the ruling regime would initiate programs, reform policies, etc., trying to take away those rights from the workers.

Throughout the '80s, the contradiction between the working class and the ruling class of Chinese society at the time was growing, and workers' resentment against the ruling class was growing.

RW: Could you give a few examples?

LM: A typical problem was the "iron rice bowl," which basically secured the right of employment for workers. This right was a result of the socialist revolution. It also included a basic safety net--like health care, cheap housing, various guarantees of people's basic needs. All of this had been undermined in the "reform" period.
You have a government which tries to do away with these guarantees. They talked about "breaking the iron rice bowl" and replacing the fixed employment system with the so-called "contract employment system"--to introduce, in their language, more "flexibility" into the labor market and also give the managers in state enterprises more power to punish and fire workers. So you have a situation in which workers' rights were being undermined in various ways.

In the socialist period, there had been "two participations" (of cadres participating in labor and workers participating in management), the reform of unreasonable rules and regulations, and also the combination of cadres, workers, and technicians in technological innovation.

Since the "reform" began, this was replaced with one-man system of management, giving the manager the exclusive power in the factories, and basically denying the workers in the factories the democratic right of participation in management. As a result, many managers abused their newly enhanced power, imposing fines and other punishments on workers. Also, the income gap between workers and managers increased in the 1980s.

According to an investigation by the official trade union in China, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the resentment of the workers with respect to the reforms and the cadres increased in the '80s.

http://revcom.us/a/v21/1005-009/1009/tianint.htm

They were calling for the reinstatement of State Programs.

According to the stats you cite, peasants are still a majority of the population in China. The peasantry is used as a kind of safety valve. When millions of rural workers move to the cities to work, if they are laid off, the state expects them to go back to their families in the country. This is the CP's strategy for reducing expenses associated with workplace injuries and illnesses as well as unemployment. They use the repressive system of residential permits as a way to enforce this.

The peasant population has been steadily decreasing as China urbanizes, and this is progressive because it indicates a growing proletariat base.

As for having a safety valve, I'm not sure what your evidence is for the above statement, but the State is increasing spending on social programs and incomes are rising for both the urban areas and country-side:

"By showing more concern over social welfare, we can achieve a sound balance between money supply and demand," said Jia, who is attending the annual session of China's top political advisory body.

After focusing almost exclusively on the pursuit of economic growth, China finds itself challenged by thorny issues that require long-term solutions. For instance, closing the urban-rural wealth gap, which hit 3.3:1 in 2006, compared with the international average of 1.8:1, is widely viewed as a huge hurdle, needing far-reaching and massive reform.

China needs to promote industrialization of agriculture, step up urbanization progress and ensure both urban and rural residents equal access to public services, which will require a steady growth of fiscal input in rural sector, Jia said.

"The investment in these fields is still not enough," he said.
To tackle chronic social issues, including the wealth gap, the ruling Communist Party and the government have repeatedly called for more efforts to be devoted to the promotion of "coordinated development" and building of "a harmonious society".

As specific measures, the government abolished the centuries-old taxes for farmers, and exempted all the 150 million pupils and middle school students in rural areas from tuition and miscellaneous fees.

Improvement has also been made in the new rural cooperative medical care system, which now covers 86 percent of China's counties and 730 million rural residents.

The government also launched campaigns to help migrant workers retrieve salaries in default and ordered migrant laborers to be included in social security network with industrial accident insurance.

A series of moves have helped boost the people's well-being and lives. The urban per capita annual net income rose from 7,703 yuan in 2002 to 13,786 yuan in 2007, and rural per capita annual net income rose from 2,476 yuan to 4,140 yuan during the same period.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-03/06/content_6514624_2.htm

You have to keep in mind that Premier Hu Jintao is much more hardline and leftist then many of his predecessors over the last 30 years.

BEIJING -- More than two years after taking office amid uncertainty about his political views, Chinese President Hu Jintao is emerging as an unyielding leader determined to preserve the Communist Party's monopoly on power and willing to impose new limits on speech and other civil liberties to do it, according to party officials, journalists and analysts.

Some say Hu has cast himself as a hard-liner to consolidate his position after a delicate leadership transition and could still lead the party in a more open direction. There is a growing consensus inside and outside the government, however, that the 62-year-old former engineer believes the party should strengthen its rule by improving its traditional mechanisms of governance, not by introducing democratic reforms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12427-2005Apr23.html

In fact he dismissed several bureaucrats that were calling for increased liberalization of the market.

Hu sealed his reputation after taking control of the military at a meeting of the party's ruling elite in September, a final step in his long climb to power. On the last day of the conclave, in his first major address to the 300-plus member Central Committee as the nation's undisputed new leader, Hu warned that "hostile forces" were trying to undermine the party by "using the banner of political reform to promote Western bourgeois parliamentary democracy, human rights and freedom of the press," according to a person given excerpts of the speech.

Hu's government has also taken steps to close regulatory loopholes that have allowed independent, nongovernmental organizations to develop in China. Several groups that escaped scrutiny for years by registering as private businesses or with the help of sympathetic officials have come under pressure.

Hu has also presided over a slowdown in the pace of the economy's transition from socialism to capitalism, with no major breakthroughs in efforts to restructure the banking system or reform stock markets in the past year and a deceleration of the nation's efforts to privatize state-owned industries, economists and party researchers said.

Instead, Hu has focused economic policy on shifting resources to the country's poorer interior and promoting what he calls a "scientific development concept," which officials have described as an attempt to balance economic growth with concerns about the environment, the welfare of rural farmers and workers, and a widening income gap.

State media have trumpeted these policies, reinforcing Hu's image as a leader who is more concerned about those left behind by the country's reforms than his predecessor. But the shift has caused grumbling among business interests and party officials who advocate faster market reforms, said a party scholar.

khad

19th March 2010, 22:32

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-03/06/content_6514624_2.htm

You have to keep in mind that Premier Hu Jintao is much more hardline and leftist then many of his predecessors over the last 30 years.
I don't know of any "hardline" leftist who promotes Confucianism. Just you wait until the Shanghai group gets back into power.

Hu has also presided over a slowdown in the pace of the economy's transition from socialism to capitalism, with no major breakthroughs in efforts to restructure the banking system or reform stock markets in the past year and a deceleration of the nation's efforts to privatize state-owned industries, economists and party researchers said.
You must be illiterate, because all this says is that he's less of a neoliberal than Hu Jintao. He's slowing down, but not stopping or reversing the privatization of the economy.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:41

Also Hu has replaced the old free market reformism with State heavy Scientific Planning: http://www.willyhoops.com/scientific_development_concept_china_political_phi losphy.htm

khad

19th March 2010, 22:44

Also Hu has replaced the old free market reformism with State heavy Scientific Planning: http://www.willyhoops.com/scientific_development_concept_china_political_phi losphy.htm
Privatizations not stopping, far from reversing. More privatization equals more neoliberalism. Those are the hard facts.

I don't give a shit about your philosophical musings.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:51

You must be illiterate, because all this says is that he's less of a neoliberal than Hu Jintao. He's slowing down, but not stopping or reversing the privatization of the economy.

Actually Hu is being heavily criticized for reversing liberalization policies:

The year 2008 marked the 30th anniversary of the beginning of market reforms in China (http://www.heritage.org/Places/Asia-and-the-Pacific/China) -- and perhaps the third anniversary of their ending. Since the present Chinese leadership took power, market-oriented liberalization has been minor. And as such policies have wound down, they have been supplanted by renewed state intervention: price controls, the reversal of privatization (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Transportation/Highways/Privatization), the rollback of measures encouraging competition, and new barriers to investment.

Why would China, with a generation of successful market reform under its belt, move back toward state control? Because of politics run amok. When the administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao assumed control seven years ago, they acted like any new Chinese regime: they moved to solidify their power through economic stimulus. Only they did not stop. Soon after they took office, lending by state banks (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Economic-Freedom/Index-of-Economic-Freedom/Financial-Freedom/Banks) and investment by local and national state entities soared. Helped temporarily by very loose global monetary conditions, the Chinese state did well by most economic standards. And success created a constituency in political and business circles that is obsessed with growth at the expense of all else. This growth today is explicitly led by the state, fueled by investment by state-owned entities, and accompanied by powerful regulatory steps meant to ensure the state's dominance of the economy (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Economy) -- all measures that contrast sharply with prior reforms.

The Chinese Communist Party no longer sees the pursuit of further genuine market-oriented reform as being in its interest. The burst of growth that the economy exhibited after the initial state-directed stimulus (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Economy/Economic-Growth/Stimulus) convinced the CCP that true liberalization is now unnecessary as well as sometimes painful. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/05/Liberalization-in-Reverse

The central government has recently reversed the outstanding progress in the liberalization of prices that China made during the first two decades of reform. The price of labor (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Labor/Jobs-And-Labor-Policy) (wages) remains largely free from government interference, but that is manifestly not the case with the price of capital (the interest rate), for which the People's Bank of China sets a compulsory and narrow range. Government intervention constantly distorts the prices of basic assets, such as land, often by simply forbidding or promoting transactions. The State Council sets and resets the prices for all key services: utilities and health care, education (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Education) and transportation. Although the exchange rate has been loosened up over the past three years, the People's Bank of China sets the daily value at which the yuan must be traded against the dollar. And currency fluctuation is still starkly limited: the daily movement of the yuan against the dollar is not allowed to exceed 0.5 percent. The market in China has never really determined the sale prices of many ordinary goods by itself, and the tendency over the past few years has been to further extend price controls for goods. The state's complete control over grain distribution has distorted wholesale grain prices; a recent bout of inflation (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Economic-Freedom/Index-of-Economic-Freedom/Monetary-Freedom/Inflation) has prompted restrictions on the prices of retail food as well. The energy sector has always been tightly regulated. The government applied price ceilings for coal and oil products, such as gasoline, as global crude-oil prices spiked during the first half of 2008 and then lifted them once prices receded. The newest plan for the energy sector, issued by the State Council in late 2007, reserves the state's absolute right to set prices.

REFORM ROLLBACK

One reason the rollback of reform has been overlooked by Washington is that China is officially engaged in a process of restructuring its economy. But this effort has none of the characteristics of market reform. It is aimed at shrinking the number of participants in many industries and expanding the size of the remaining enterprises; through both measures, it will reduce competition. This is not a strategy unique to China: Japan and South Korea have also created so-called national champions, supporting large corporate groups with the idea that their size will make them competitive on the global market. An unspoken corollary of this policy is that private domestic and foreign firms often are prevented from competing with these privileged firms. China has been enamored of the concept of national champions for at least a decade, but even more so since the ascent of Hu and Wen.

.....

This lack of genuine FDI is no accident: Beijing deliberately decided to restrict market access. Its mercantilist tendencies intensified sharply in the fall of 2005, as reflected in the discussion of the sale of minority shares in state banks at the plenary meeting of the CCP's Central Committee. Then, the pathbreaking acquisition in October 2005 of the state-owned Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group by the Carlyle Group, a U.S. private equity firm, was reversed. Several sales that had previously been approved were vetoed at the March 2006 meeting of the National People's Congress. Additional industries were designated as "strategic" and thus made off-limits to foreign investors. During the CCP's plenary meeting in the fall of 2006, this limitation morphed into an outright ban on any type of FDI that threatened "economic security" -- a concept that was never defined.Also the Party is tightening regulation and giving Unions greater powers of prosecution:

Two recent laws that have been touted as market reforms will in fact place yet more limitations on the activities of foreign companies in China. The new labor law, aimed at enhancing workers' rights (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Political-Thought/First-Principles/Foundational-Concepts/Rights), is being implemented by the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, a xenophobic organ of the CCP that has uniformly ignored abusive behavior by state firms while periodically assailing foreign firms for comparatively minor violations. Despite its nominal purpose, the new antimonopoly law will not promote competition either. Designed to protect "the public interest" and promote "the healthy development of the socialist market economy," it forbids firms with dominant market shares from buying or selling goods and services at "unreasonable" prices, but it neither defines a market nor offers any method for identifying what is unreasonable. Most telling, the antimonopoly law contains exceptions for all industries controlled by the state and all industries deemed important to national security. It further requires that proposed acquisitions by foreign investors be subjected to both a review on national security grounds and an antitrust probe. Such screenings exist in many countries, but with the CCP's exceptionally broad definition of "national security," these are exceptionally sweeping. Also distressing, regulators can suspend or limit intellectual property rights if they deem these to have been abused in the service of creating a monopoly. The Chinese state has long considered many patents unfair, but now it has the legal (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Legal) means to act against them. The government can wield the antimonopoly law against foreign companies or governments that seek to protect intellectual property, as did the U.S. government before the WTO in 2007 and the French company Danone against the China Patent and Trademark Office in 2008.

I like how the bourgeoisie apologist describes the Union as xenophobic, and how the authors keeps whining about how X isn't defined, or Y isn't defined, as if the Unions should have to explain themselves to the bourgeoisie in a workers' state.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 22:55

Likewise this increased use of State Planning and curtailment of reforms is tipping outsiders to the left:

The success of the State Capitalist model in China, and the economic crisis infecting more lassiez-fair counties, is tipping the intellectual consensus towards a more interventionist approach. The Scientific Development Concept, whose description includes phrases such as “coordinated development”, stresses an interventionist approach supported by empirical observation. Indeed, the Scientific Development Concept describes a generally greater degree of confidence in interventionist policy compared to Deng Xiaoping Theory.

http://www.willyhoops.com/scientific_development_concept_china_political_phi losphy.htm

khad

19th March 2010, 23:01

This lack of genuine FDI is no accident: Beijing deliberately decided to restrict market access. Its mercantilist tendencies intensified sharply in the fall of 2005, as reflected in the discussion of the sale of minority shares in state banks at the plenary meeting of the CCP's Central Committee. Then, the pathbreaking acquisition in October 2005 of the state-owned Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group by the Carlyle Group, a U.S. private equity firm, was reversed. Several sales that had previously been approved were vetoed at the March 2006 meeting of the National People's Congress. Additional industries were designated as "strategic" and thus made off-limits to foreign investors. During the CCP's plenary meeting in the fall of 2006, this limitation morphed into an outright ban on any type of FDI that threatened "economic security" -- a concept that was never defined.Dumbass, just because the state reversed ONE privatization doesn't mean that the trend has been reversed. Your anecdotes are fucking irrelevant, because the trend has been towards more privatization. I suggest you stop with these lies, you Dengist.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/files/eastasiapacific/blog_SOEs_fig1.jpg

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:09

Dumbass, just because the state reversed ONE privatization doesn't mean that the trend has been reversed. Your anecdotes are fucking irrelevant, because the trend has been towards more privatization. I suggest you stop with these lies, you Dengist.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/files/eastasiapacific/blog_SOEs_fig1.jpg

That chart is misleading because the Central government has been consolidating State Owned Enterprises.

The results of this restructuring have been striking. Since the highly publicized contraction of the telecommunications industry from four firms to three, there are now only 17 national enterprises in the oil and petrochemicals, gas, coal, electric power, telecommunications, and tobacco sectors combined. First Aviation Industry and Second Aviation Industry merged; apparently, two firms in that sector was one too many. From cement to retail, all areas are consolidating. Rather than permitting competition to drive down the windfall profits from crude oil and drive out inefficient oil-product suppliers, for example, the National Development and Reform Commission raised taxes on crude for the three state oil giants -- which together constitute the entire crude industry -- while subsidizing them in the refining sector, where they face small competitors. The state now plays a central role in all oil-related activities in the country.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/05/Liberalization-in-Reverse

Also I should add that sometimes the allowance of an SOE unto the market is mistaken as privatization:

Examining what companies are truly private is important because privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes. In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors. Nearly two-thirds of the state-owned enterprises and subsidiaries in China have undertaken such changes, leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as "nonstate" or even "private." But this reclassification is incorrect. The sale of stock does nothing by itself to alter state control: dozens of enterprises are no less state controlled simply because they are listed on foreign stock exchanges. As a practical matter, three-quarters of the roughly 1,500 companies listed as domestic stocks are still state owned.

No matter their shareholding structure, all national corporations in the sectors that make up the core of the Chinese economy are required by law to be owned or controlled by the state. These sectors include power generation and distribution; oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas; telecommunications (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Regulation/Internet-And-Technology/Telecommunications); armaments; aviation (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Transportation/Aviation) and shipping; machinery and automobile production; information technologies; construction; and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals. The railroads, grain distribution, and insurance are also dominated by the state, even if no official edict says so. In addition, state enterprises draw their top executives from the same pool as does the government. Chinese officials routinely bounce back and forth from corporate to government posts, each time at the behest of the CCP.

Moreover, the state exercises control over most of the rest of the economy through the financial system, especially the banks. By the end of 2008, outstanding loans amounted to almost $5 trillion, and annual loan growth was almost 19 percent and accelerating; lending, in other words, is probably China's principal economic force. The Chinese state owns all the large financial institutions, the People's Bank of China assigns them loan quotas (http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Trade/Protectionism/Quotas) every year, and lending is directed according to the state's priorities.The second is with regards to assets. Sorry that was a little late, I didn't notice it immediately.

khad

19th March 2010, 23:13

That chart is misleading because the Central government has been consolidating State Owned Enterprises.
Are you deliberately trying to troll? This graph charts both the NUMBER of firms as well as the TOTAL ASSETS held by these firms. Consolidation should have no impact on TOTAL ASSETS.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/05/Liberalization-in-ReverseFail.

The second is with regards to assets. Sorry that was a little late, I didn't notice it immediately.
Again you fail. I pointed out before that the Soviet state firms did not operate with market mechanisms, but the Chinese ones do. I'll let you take a guess as to which ones are more capitalist.

The Chinese state owns all the large financial institutions, the People's Bank of China assigns them loan quotas (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Trade/Protectionism/Quotas) every year, and lending is directed according to the state's priorities.
The USA used to have a National Bank. Did that make the Early Republic a Communist period in US history?

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:18

Are you deliberately trying to troll? This graph charts both the NUMBER of firms as well as the TOTAL ASSETS held by these firms. Consolidation should have no impact on TOTAL ASSETS.

I guess they're being consolidated into a pocket dimension.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:22

Again you fail. I pointed out before that the Soviet state firms did not operate with market mechanisms, but the Chinese ones do. I'll let you take a guess as to which ones are more capitalist.

That's because Stalin ended the NEP:

The Soviet Union broke it off five years after Lenin's death

In March 1923, 17 months after completing this plan, Lenin fell ill and died in January 1924. Stalin rose to power after Lenin's death. As the leader of the Soviet government and the Communist Party, Stalin from 1929 to 1930 carried out the so-called "agricultural collectivization" as a means of forcibly collecting grain from peasants.

To begin with, the NEP was intended to improve the government's relations with the peasants. So the top-down "agricultural collectivization" policy meant an end of the NEP. Since then, the policy of achieving "socialism through a market economy" never made a comeback in the Soviet Union.

Several decades later, when the Soviet Union was under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the "introduction of a market economy" was much discussed. But during the preceding 60 years the Soviet Union completely changed itself. Substantial changes took place in the socio-economic system of the Soviet Union during and after Stalin's era. In effect, Soviet society had already become a system in which socialism or even a direction toward socialism was non-existent.

http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jps_weekly/2002-0827-fuwa.html

This lead to all sorts of economic quagmires:

In dealing with the question, "how much more value does skilled labor create than unskilled labor?", Marx said that it is measured by the market mechanism. In Marx's words, such value is determined by a "social process" behind the producers. What he meant was that there is this aspect of market mechanisms.

It is very suggestive that the Soviet-style planned economy turned into a complete fiasco in this regard, as shown clearly by reports delivered by Khrushchev during the 1950s and 1960s at the CPSU Central Committee meetings.

At one point, he stated that in the Soviet Union achievements of productive activities are measured by the weight of products; producing heavier chandeliers is evaluated as better job performance; heavier chandelier may increase the enterprise's earnings, but for whom?"

On another occasion he said: "Why is furniture made in the Soviet Union so unpopular? It is because factories are producing heavy products.

Foreign-made furniture is lighter and easier to use. In our country, achievement of production of most machineries is measured by the weight of products. Twice as much iron as that needed for machinery platforms is used; that way may enable the factories to achieve their goals, but they are only making products that can't be of any use. We need to establish new standards to measure achievements of factories."

Such was the Soviet Union's level of study on standards for evaluating economic results 30 years after it abandoned the market economy.

We have an interesting experience in relations to this issue.

After the U.S. war of aggression against Vietnam ended and peace was restored there, we sent a delegation to Vietnam to study the Vietnamese economy and give them advice on economic reconstruction.

The delegation visited farming districts. As you know, they grow rice in paddies. To assist in the mechanization of Vietnam's agriculture, the Soviet Union had sent in rice transplanting machines to Vietnam. Being a product of the Soviet-style planned economy, they were very heavy machines, so heavy that they sank into the mud of the paddies. The Vietnamese felt obliged to use the gift, and decided to use them by attaching two boats on both sides of the machine to prevent the planting machines from sinking. They could plant rice seedlings all right, but the attached two boats pressed down the rice seedling just planted. They finally decided to stop using those machines.

This example shows how difficult it is to find a substitute for the market economy as a system to improve labor productivity and efficiency of economic activities.

This question was not on Marx's mind. In Capital Marx stated that the concept of value remains in communist society. However, we cannot use this remark to speculate that he thought that the market economy would continue to be valid too. If the concept of value will remain valid, it is necessary to think if it is possible for the concept of value to survive without a market economy.

For the concept of value to be valid in the communist society, there must be some kind of mechanism to measure the "value" of labor in place of the "social process" that operated behind the producers, namely the "market economy."

I believe that this involves major unsolved theoretical questions in this area. These are questions that can only be solved as time passes and practical experiences are accumulated worldwide.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 23:22

The new labor law, aimed at enhancing workers' rights (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Political-Thought/First-Principles/Foundational-Concepts/Rights), is being implemented by the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, a xenophobic organ of the CCP that has uniformly ignored abusive behavior by state firms while periodically assailing foreign firms for comparatively minor violations.

You apparently confuse party propaganda with reality. Do you have any idea what the ACFTU is, how it is run? Very often the heads are managers. The US Chamber of Commerce made a big fuss over this proposed change in the law, and China backed down a bit to keep them happy. The ACFTU made a big fuss over "organizing" Walmart. But the head of that "union" is a manager there, and they had no intention of organizing any struggle for better wages or conditions.

Occasionally a local branch of ACFTU will organize workers in a struggle. Sometimes when this happens the head of the union branch is simply fired.

Neither the ACFTU nor the CP even enforce the nominal worker rights that exist. China has a labor payment policy similar to US, requiring an 8 hour day and payment of overtime, and also has a right to know law requiring that workers are given safety data sheets on chemicals they work with. Except that these laws are routinely ignored by employers. Many of the strikes that happen are just to force the employer to recognize the law, pay them the minimum wage (another law employers routinely ignore), pay them overtime, etc.

As to where I get this info, you can find this out from the China Labor Bulletin and its reports, as I mentioned, as well as other similar groups.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:23

The USA used to have a National Bank. Did that make the Early Republic a Communist period in US history?

Well I mean its more progressive then a private bank.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:23

I guess they're being consolidated into a pocket dimension.

Centralism.

khad

19th March 2010, 23:25

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:36

Occasionally a local branch of ACFTU will organize workers in a struggle. Sometimes when this happens the head of the union branch is simply fired.

Neither the ACFTU nor the CP even enforce the nominal worker rights that exist. China has a labor payment policy similar to US, requiring an 8 hour day and payment of overtime, and also has a right to know law requiring that workers are given safety data sheets on chemicals they work with. Except that these laws are routinely ignored by employers. Many of the strikes that happen are just to force the employer to recognize the law, pay them the minimum wage (another law employers routinely ignore), pay them overtime, etc.

As to where I get this info, you can find this out from the China Labor Bulletin and its reports, as I mentioned, as well as other similar groups.

Well they arrest businessmen:

AN AUSTRALIAN man is one of four Rio Tinto employees who have been arrested and detained by Chinese authorities, with the Rudd Government demanding Beijing provide "urgent consular access to him".

Rio's iron ore sales team was arrested by the Public Security Bureau in Shanghai, including the Australian passport holder, Stern Hu, and three Chinese passport holders. No explanation was given.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1909492,00.html

The former head of Chinese oil firm Sinopec, who stepped down unexpectedly in June, has been arrested. Officials confirmed that Chen Tonghai had been detained for questioning, but did not explain why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7046606.stm

And: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-05/23/content_7934711.htm

Thirty-two mentally challenged people forced to work as slave laborers have been rescued from two brick kilns in Anhui province, police said on Friday.

About 80 policemen raided the kilns in Zhuanji and Guangwu townships in Jieshou late last month, rescued the "workers" and arrested the kiln owner, surnamed Zhang, and nine others suspected of aiding him run the criminal racket, said Zhao Liang, a Jieshou public security bureau officer.In fact they arrested THE richest man in all of China:

One of the big news this week that many Chinese are talking about on China’s BBS forums is Huang Guangyu (黄光裕) being arrested and investigated for manipulating the stock market. He is the founder and boss of China’s number one electrical appliances retailer, Gome (国美电器）, which has over 500 stores throughout China.

He is also one of China’s richest men. In fact, in 2008 he was the #1 richest man with about 43 billion RMB (or ~6.3 billion USD).http://www.chinasmack.com/stories/china-richest-man-gome-founder-arrested/

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:38

Neither the ACFTU nor the CP even enforce the nominal worker rights that exist. China has a labor payment policy similar to US, requiring an 8 hour day and payment of overtime, and also has a right to know law requiring that workers are given safety data sheets on chemicals they work with. Except that these laws are routinely ignored by employers. Many of the strikes that happen are just to force the employer to recognize the law, pay them the minimum wage (another law employers routinely ignore), pay them overtime, etc.

The whole thing gives Socialism a bad fucking name, and makes all our struggles harder.

khad

19th March 2010, 23:39

Well they arrest businessmen:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1909492,00.html

And: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-05/23/content_7934711.htm

In fact they arrested THE richest man in all of China:

http://www.chinasmack.com/stories/china-richest-man-gome-founder-arrested/
So? It's just one part of the bourgeoisie cannibalizing the other. Don't get me wrong, it's always funny to see them get arrested or executed, but don't delude yourself into thinking it changes the nature of the game. The CPC is recruiting more from the bourgeoisie by the day.

Thirty-two mentally challenged people forced to work as slave laborers have been rescued from two brick kilns in Anhui province, police said on Friday.

About 80 policemen raided the kilns in Zhuanji and Guangwu townships in Jieshou late last month, rescued the "workers" and arrested the kiln owner, surnamed Zhang, and nine others suspected of aiding him run the criminal racket, said Zhao Liang, a Jieshou public security bureau officer.What you forget to mention, since I was the one who posted the brickyard story first, was that those 80 policemen had to be summoned from a different province because all the provincial authorities had been bought off by the slavers. The local party was HEAVILY involved in the enslavement of workers.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:40

Well they arrest businessmen:

Yeah, and the US put Bernie Madoff in jail as well.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 23:40

Corruption is so incredibly widespread in China the government has to make these occasional forays, to make it look as if they are "doing something."

But this doesn't change the actual reality as I described it. It doesn't change the fact that the official "union" is a device to protect corporations because that is what the CP wants. It doesn't change the fact that the government uses its police power to break up and illegalize strike movements, it doesn't change the reality of China having the worst record in the world in regard to workplace injuries and illnesses, it doesn't change the fact that disobedience of worker rights laws is extremely widespread.

RaÃºl Duke

19th March 2010, 23:42

China is growing so fast precisely because it isn't capitalist, the State controls all big banks and reinvests 40% of the economy into social programs, state enterprises and research programs. If China does go capitalist you will know it because the economy will completely collapse like it did in Russia.

State-owned industries are not a sign of socialism...
Even your post alludes to this:

In both Italy and Germany, perfectly solvent publicly owned enterprises, such as power plants, steel mills, banks, railways, insurance firms, steamship companies, and shipyards, were handed over to private ownership.

Germany prior to the Nazi take-over was never a "socalist" society in any way, shape, or form.

Even the Prussian-dominated German Reich had many public owned state stuff and at his time Marx remarked that just state-ownership did not entail socialism.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:42

Corruption is so incredibly widespread in China the government has to make these occasional forays, to make it look as if they are "doing something."

You read about that CPC official whose diary got leaked? Full of his day-by-day accounts of his taking of bribes and fucking his numerous extra-marital girlfriends.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:45

The NEP had to be destroyed eventually. It was only meant as a stopgap, a breathing period after the destruction of the civil war. Only Bukharinites think it should have been expanded. The question should be how to improve upon the Soviet system, not replace it with a dog-eat-dog neoliberalism. I don't need to hear bullshit rationales of economic efficiency--that's cappie talk, and that'll land you in OI.

Furthermore, in regards to China, the CPC is the new business elite.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ondemand/index.cfm?fuseaction=media.play&mediaid=E4FBB9B3-EFD7-66CB-282BFB6FAE49E3DB

Guess who's a bourgeoisie supporting motherfucker.

The CCP is seriously cracking down on corruption:

Two senior judicial officials in Chongqing have been arrested for taking "huge amounts of bribes" in the midst of a widening corruption scandal in the southwestern city, a municipal spokesman said yesterday.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/18/content_8705935.htm

400 fugitive corrupt officials arrested
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2006-03-25 17:15 China has arrested over 400 corrupt officials up until the end of February in the country's second nation-wide anti-corruption campaign which began at the start of this year, reported the Democracy & Law Times newspaper.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/25/content_552252.htm

And cleaning up the police as well:

Chongqing: At least 3,000 police officials in Chongqing are facing a major job reshuffle to clean up the police force tainted by its protection of several organized gangs.
All police officers ranking between the lowest administrative level (deputy head of a section) and the level of deputy bureau director in the city must take exams to compete for new posts starting in March, according to head of the city's public security bureau.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/17/content_9599992.htm

khad

19th March 2010, 23:48

The CCP is seriously cracking down on corruption:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/18/content_8705935.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/25/content_552252.htm

And cleaning up the police as well:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/17/content_9599992.htm
Are they forcing corrupt officials to shoot and gas themselves out of fear like Andropov did? No? Not good enough. All this reeks of a PR campaign. Criminalize corruption, legitimize business.

The FACT of the matter is that the CPC is recruiting more and more from the ranks of entrepreneurs, and this is a trend that has no sign of slowing or reversing. It has become the party of the businessmen.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:49

What you forget to mention, since I was the one who posted the brickyard story first, was that those 80 policemen had to be summoned from a different province because all the provincial authorities had been bought off by the slavers. The local party was HEAVILY involved in the enslavement of workers.

They arrested hundreds of people over that:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-06/17/content_896018.htm

BEIJING -- Chinese police have detained 168 people in in a large-scale operation to rescue slave laborers in small brick kilns and mines in Shanxi and Henan provinces in central China.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-08/03/content_5447761.htm

A further 31 people, including four government officials, were sentenced on Tuesday for their role in the forced labor scandal in North China's Shanxi Province in June.

To date, 95 Party officials in Shanxi have been punished over the slave labor scandal. Some were expelled from the Party and removed from government posts, while others received disciplinary warnings for lax supervision and dereliction of duty.

khad

19th March 2010, 23:51

A further 31 people, including four government officials, were sentenced on Tuesday for their role in the forced labor scandal in North China's Shanxi Province in June.

To date, 95 Party officials in Shanxi have been punished over the slave labor scandal. Some were expelled from the Party and removed from government posts, while others received disciplinary warnings for lax supervision and dereliction of duty.

So 91 officials got slaps on the wrist for facilitating a major slaver operation. Check.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:51

You read about that CPC official whose diary got leaked? Full of his day-by-day accounts of his taking of bribes and fucking his numerous extra-marital girlfriends.

He was arrested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8568076.stm

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:52

Even the Prussian-dominated German Reich had many public owned state stuff and at his time Marx remarked that just state-ownership did not entail socialism.

It may not have been socialist but both countries had publicly owned industries. I mean the US isn't socialist but we still have social security and public schools.

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:54

He was arrested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8568076.stm

Yeah, they kinda had to after the journal was leaked, didn't they?

Doesn't matter. There'll be more.

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 23:57

So 91 officials got slaps on the wrist for facilitating a major slaver operation. Check.

I don't know what everyone's punishment was exactly, but I do know some of them faced some pretty severe consequences:

Zhao Yanbing, a worker at a brick kiln in Hongtong county, was sentenced to death after being convicted of beating a mentally handicapped man to death in November.

The kiln's foreman, Heng Tinghan, who abducted 31 people and forced them to work long hours without pay, was given life imprisonment; while kiln boss Wang Bingbing, who was found guilty of illegally detaining the laborers, was given a nine-year sentence.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-08/03/content_5447761.htm

Robocommie

19th March 2010, 23:58

Dermezel, you're grasping at straws here. I've never been one to have a problem with different ideas or perspectives, but you should be aware that Dengism and the like, which generally seems to be what you're supporting, is generally a road to being restricted.

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:03

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 00:04

Robocommie

20th March 2010, 00:06

Yeah I'm not a Dengist.

And yet you've been pretty much arguing this entire thread that China remains socialist. That's something that not even Trots and Stalinists will fight about, and they fight about everything.

khad

20th March 2010, 00:06

Yeah I'm not a Dengist.
You continue to support the bourgeois CPC and its current approach towards market capitalism. You also deride planned economies and praise market mechanisms. Your entire concept of state operated enterprises is tied to the idea of a market.

Just because you say you aren't doesn't mean you aren't.

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:12

Ok, so basically you've proven that China is state-capitalist. So what? It's largely become a leasing state that leases out itself to multi-nationals. The State socializes the risks and privatizes the profits. Nearly all states do this these days. Singapore is socialist then by your definition as many industries are state owned or the government owns the majority share.

Okay I've been looking at the definitions of State Capitalism, and I have no idea what it is:

State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) are controlled and directed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) by the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) in a capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist) manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-0) Corporatized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatization) state agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, and thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism. Within Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) — the wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage) system of producing and appropriating surplus value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value) in a commodity economy — with ownership or control by a state apparatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state). By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation). There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution) or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Other socialists use the term state capitalism to refer to an economic system that is nominally capitalist, where business and private owners reap the profits from an economy largely subsidized, developed and where decisive research and development is undertaken by the state sector at public cost.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-1)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-1)
This term is also used by some advocates of laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) capitalism to mean a private capitalist economy under state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) control, often meaning a privately-owned economy that is under economic planning. Some even use it to refer to capitalist economies where the state provides substantial public services and regulation over business activity. In the 1930s, Italian Fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism) leader Benito Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) described Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) as "state socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) turned on its head."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-2) This term was often used to describe the controlled economies of the great powers in the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-3) In more modern sense, state capitalism is a term that is used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism)) to describe a system where the state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance interests of Big Business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Business). This practice is in sharp contrast with the ideals of both socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and laissez-faire capitalism.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#cite_note-4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

That's like four different definitions.

And the State does not privatize all the profits. In fact the State Owned banks of China reinvest 40% of their assets directly into the Chinese economy. And rural incomes are set to double (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90785/6513622.html).

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:14

You continue to support the bourgeois CPC and its current approach towards market capitalism. You also deride planned economies and praise market mechanisms. Your entire concept of state operated enterprises is tied to the idea of a market.

Just because you say you aren't doesn't mean you aren't.

If that was the case I'd be promoting India or Russia since both currently have a freer market then China. It is precisely because China's market is not free that it is doing so well. And I support increased State ownership in the economy. In fact I think the People's Republic should expropriate most of the private industries within China.

khad

20th March 2010, 00:14

Okay I've been looking at the definitions of State Capitalism, and I have no idea what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

That's like four different definitions.

And the State does not privatize all the profits. In fact the State Owned banks of China reinvest 40% of their assets directly into the Chinese economy. And rural incomes are set to double (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90785/6513622.html).
You don't have a clue about socialist economics--only the market and finance capitalism.

If that was the case I'd be promoting India or Russia since both currently have a freer market then China. It is precisely because China's market is not free that it is doing so well. And I support increased State ownership in the economy. In fact I think the People's Republic should expropriate most of the private industries within China.
This is the Dengist line. The reality is that China is heading towards more privatizations and further erosion of workers' rights.

Robocommie

20th March 2010, 00:16

If that was the case I'd be promoting India or Russia since both currently have a freer market then China. It is precisely because China's market is not free that it is doing so well. And I support increased State ownership in the economy. In fact I think the People's Republic should expropriate most of the private industries within China.

Dude, it's not just free market or socialism. There's more than two ways to be.

syndicat

20th March 2010, 00:17

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:20

This is the Dengist line. The reality is that China is heading towards more privatizations and further erosion of workers' rights.

Well I think Hu is starting to reverse this, and if you feel that way you should try to prevent it. Also you should note the beneficial aspects of China's planned economy over free market economies like India or modern day Russia.

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:21

Dude, it's not just free market or socialism. There's more than two ways to be.

Such as?

syndicat

20th March 2010, 00:23

his point might be better phrased as, state control or free market are not the only options. there is also the option of the Chinese working class taking over the means of production and destroying the power of both the capitalists and the bureaucrats.

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:24

What is the point to socialism? according to Marx in the 1860s, "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." So it's supposed to be a movement in which the working class takes over control in society and social production and ends its subordination to, and exploitation by, a dominating class. It's not about having a powerful state controlling things. It's not about empowering some bureaucratic class.

Yeah I would agree with that, but I think your comparing bureaucracy to the capitalist class is inaccurate because the means of production is not legally inherited. Likewise, State ownership is still progressive, and you can have a deformed Workers' State in the meantime.

khad

20th March 2010, 00:25

Well I think Hu is starting to reverse this, and if you feel that way you should try to prevent it. Also you should note the beneficial aspects of China's planned economy over free market economies like India or modern day Russia.
So then what do you consider the role of market socialism in building socialism? How does the market have any place in socialism?

What I am noting here is that it is a good thing the Workers' State is growing via market socialist means. These means demand the state still retain firm control of the economy, the "commanding heights" to thwart the worst excesses of capitalism, but such compromise is necessary for political reasons as it brings in necessary foreign capital for development.

syndicat

20th March 2010, 00:30

Yeah I would agree with that, but I think your comparing bureaucracy to the capitalist class is inaccurate because the means of production is not legally inherited. Likewise, State ownership is still progressive, and you can have a deformed Workers' State in the meantime.

throughout the history of class society, dominating and exploiting classes have had various institutional arrangements on which their power has been based. within corporate capitalism here in the USA there is also a bureaucratic class -- the various middle managers, corporate lawyers, doctors, management consultants, judges, cops, military officers, etc. This class also does not hand on its class position through inheritance of a fortune. Mainly they do it thru the culture and motivation passed on to children, using their influence to ensure very good school systems for their children, and placement in highly selective 4-year colleges and universities. Why is it relevant that this class doesn't pass on its fortune through inheritance?

within the USA this class is subordinate to the captialist elite. But it is still a class that dominates and participates in the exploitation of the working class. Your way of phrasing things ends up being a kind of apologetics for the bureaucratic class. it seems your real philosophy is not "workers to power" but "long live the bureaucrats".

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 00:54

So then what do you consider the role of market socialism in building socialism? How does the market have any place in socialism?

It can be used to measure certain things like what color shoes people want, or various labor processes. Even then I think that can eventually be fully replaced once we have mastered the technical means, in fact an advanced socialist economy can likely do this very quickly using computers to project or model what people want, or by people directly ordering products via the net.

Also, I think that a free market economy is much less efficient then a planned economy. In fact, the reason why China is growing after liberalization is primarily political, not economic:

To gauge this, we must take into account three matters.

The first is that economic development depends on the introduction of more advanced machinery and production-related knowledge - that is, technology. For all less developed economies, that means importing technology from the industrially advanced countries and applying it successfully in local conditions. Even the most advanced countries rely hugely on importing technological developments from each other, by means which include cross-investment, purchase of technology licences and buying foreign machinery.

Secondly, countries in which workers are paid lower wages have a big potential advantage in competitive world trade, because, other things being equal, they can produce cheaper goods. But other things are not equal. Aspects which restrict the less developed countries from benefiting in global trade from their relatively lower wages stem from the very fact that they are less developed- not only do they have generally lower levels of technology, but they have lower levels of infrastructure, education, and health.

Third and by no means least: national economies exist within a global context which is dominated militarily and politically by the USA and economically by the advanced capitalist countries of North America, Western Europe and Japan; is regulated by international institutions controlled by those countries; and in which transnational corporations which are almost exclusively based in those countries own and control hugely important resources including the most up-to-date technology. The People's Republic of China was and still is a Third World nation. Its per-capita GDP, even when measured by purchasing-power parity, is $7,600 per person, considerably less than one-fifth that of the United States.

As we shall see, moving away from full public ownership and implementing market reforms has indeed been crucial for China in overcoming barriers to more rapid development; but these measures have been necessary in a very different way from that given in the usual explanations. It is acknowledged by all that the increase in China's foreign trade, especially trade with the West, has been an indispensable factor in the country's increased economic growth since the late 1970s. Yet the conventional economic analysts never make a connection with the obviously relevant fact: that China was enabled to increase its trade with the USA and other Western countries, including both its imports of technology and its exports of manufactured goods, because Western economic restrictions against China were relaxed during this period.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/how_china_rises_01546.html

Worker States are put in a position of sanctions, either de jure and/or de facto because the imperialists often times see no reason to invest if he or she cannot own the means of production.

Like the NEP brought cooperation from the peasants, China can bring in foreign investment by temporarily loosening its controls. However that must be done cautiously (the Party must maintain full political control) and should be heavily regulated, and eventually even expropriated.

khad

20th March 2010, 00:59

It can be used to measure certain things like what color shoes people want, or various labor processes. Even then I think that can eventually be fully replaced once we have mastered the technical means, in fact an advanced socialist economy can likely do this very quickly using computers to project or model what people want, or by people directly ordering products via the net.

Also, I think that a free market economy is much less efficient then a planned economy. In fact, the reason why China is growing after liberalization is primarily political, not economic:

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/how_china_rises_01546.html

Worker States are put in a position of sanctions, either de jure and/or de facto because the imperialists often times see no reason to invest if he or she cannot own the means of production.

Like the NEP brought cooperation from the peasants, China can bring in foreign investment by temporarily loosening its controls. However that must be done cautiously (the Party must maintain full political control) and should be heavily regulated, and eventually even expropriated.
As I said, your basic premise is false as the Party continues to fill up with capitalists and assets held by the state continue to decline. You sound like a technocrat whose primary concern is efficiency, not workers.

Labor should never be subject to a market in a socialist society. The labor market is the tool through which capitalists blackmail workers.

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 01:02

As I said, your basic premise is false as the Party continues to fill up with capitalists and assets held by the state continue to decline. You sound like a technocrat whose primary concern is efficiency, not workers.

My primary goal is to make sure the proletariat are scientifically literate, place technology ahead of superstition, and gain political power. Marxism is based on a scientific understanding of capital development. And the goal of scientific socialism is to make sure nobody has to be a worker, not to advocate hard work. That's like someone in the days of slavery advocating slaves work harder and rely less on machinery.

Basically I want more technology and social programs so that people have more free time and have to work less. Most production is based on machinery anyways.

khad

20th March 2010, 01:05

My primary goal is to make sure the proletariat are scientifically literate, place technology ahead of superstition, and gain political power.
And apparently if using some of the most rapacious mechanisms available to capitalism furthers that goal, then it's worth it? All I see is a privileging of bourgeois elites.

Basically I want more technology and social programs so that people have more free time and have to work less. Most production is based on machinery anyways.You're so full of shit. Chinese workers have to work harder than before after this so-called reform, and many have diminished access to social services.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 01:20

China, like most of the Asian Tiger nations, including Singapore are gaining a lot of their wealth by using the the state to fund private business. It basically leases itself out (whoring itself out in my opinion) to multi-nationals, uses public funds to invest in private business and then return the profits back into more investment into private business. It's a cycle of endless investment going into private business. How can you not see this?

At best, the Chinese state may go Keynesian and protectionist in the future, which might benefit the workers in the short term. As the push for domestic consumption, they might not need free trade as much anymore.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 01:24

http://monthlyreview.org/-landsberg.php

Read this article. It's one of the best out there on the situation. The higher concentration of wealth among individuals in China, the closer connection to the upper crust of the CPC. They syphon funds from the state in order to fuel private industry. Privatization doesn't mean cutting the state altogether in all cases, it can also mean shifting public funds that once for social programs to business programs or programs favorable to business. State Owned this or that means nothing!

Dermezel

20th March 2010, 01:35

And apparently if using some of the most rapacious mechanisms available to capitalism furthers that goal, then it's worth it?

No, I do not believe that for various moralistic and strategic reasons. I will have to leave now for a while and will explain this further when I return.

Dermezel

21st March 2010, 08:14

First we should begin with a historical overview of the situation. If China is composed of a bureaucrats, it is a group that has fought an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist revolution roughly seventy years ago. It is also one that has expropriated major means of production, and kept the majority of such means State owned/collectivized, and abolished legal inheritance of the major means of production. And it is one with an overall Marxist-Leninist ideology.

This makes the situation very different then in a capitalist developing nation like India, or Russia, or Brazil, where the means of production are largely privatized, inherited, and there has never been a revolution, or the revolution was effectively and formally defeated by a counter-revolution, and the economies subsequently collapsed (in fact I would posit an economic collapse as a necessary consequence of capitalist restoration after a long-established leftist revolutionary government takes power ) and there is no official Marxist ideology among government officials.

That being the case I see no reason to bring back capitalism. I do think you can have strategic trade deals to procure technology and infrastructure development, and do agree that this can lead to serious problems that must be checked by the State, and that such being the case, it is critical for the Communist Party to retain political power over any pro-capitalist organization. Capitalist restoration must be constantly kept at bay in this situation.

I think the difference here is you seem to think the Communist Party is lost, and China cannot reform, whereas I think many of the gains of the revolution persist and should be defended.

That being the case I'd rather a revolutionary worker state benefit then the US or a capitalist state.

In fact that wouldn't make any sense at all because capitalism is less efficient then a state-planned economy.

I support using markets as a political move, I do not support bringing back capitalism. In fact I think its time the entire market was expropriated save for maybe small businesses or unless it is impossible.

At the same time, I do not agree with abandoning all the gains made by the Chinese people and preaching that we should just dismiss the Communist Party as bourgeoisie because that can lead to a weakening of class consciousness and a strategic loss for the proletariat as a whole. Any possible base of operations the proletariat can use they should defend.

If you do not like what the bureaucrats are doing you should call for China to go left, not dismiss them as being capitalist already.

Also a bureaucracy is necessary in any organization. Any organization that has no bureaucracy is going to fall apart, and yes it is conceivable that they may have more pay and privileges and some may be corrupt. That doesn't mean I call them just as bad as capitalists. I don't call a union as bad as capitalists just because some of the leaders are corrupt. Does anyone even know how the CCP's rates of corruption compare to that of CEOs based on scientific measurements?

I'm willing to bet its far less. I know that Unions, despite wild rumors of corruption and sensational stories are far less corrupt then private managers in companies, it is something like 15% - 80%. And to what degree, I know how much the average bourgeoisie in the US makes to an american, something like 1000s or millions of times more. In China is this true with bureaucrats to the same degree? I doubt it.

I think the main difference is over there they can at least recognize it as corruption, whereas over here we called it "earned income" or inheritance.

Die Neue Zeit

21st March 2010, 08:53

Despite China's blatantly capitalist economy, I think the regime would do better to retain monopoly in the commanding heights rather than flirting with the idea of privatizing them.

Outside these heights, they should look seriously into some "market socialist" mechanisms employed by fellow capitalist countries, most notably sovereign wealth funds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund).

Damn, I'm behind the curve: they are already using such funds!

Dermezel

22nd March 2010, 05:35

Damn, I'm behind the curve: they are already using such funds!

Do not underestimate the Workers' State. The USSR and People's Republic leaped ahead in modernization for a reason!

syndicat

22nd March 2010, 18:35

Also a bureaucracy is necessary in any organization. Any organization that has no bureaucracy is going to fall apart, and yes it is conceivable that they may have more pay and privileges and some may be corrupt. That doesn't mean I call them just as bad as capitalists. I don't call a union as bad as capitalists just because some of the leaders are corrupt. Does anyone even know how the CCP's rates of corruption compare to that of CEOs based on scientific measurements?

so now you show yourself to be a blatant apologist for the bureaucratic ruling class. If you say that such a class is always necessary, you are saying that authentic socialism -- workers actually running things -- is impossible. You obviously don't believe that the working class has the capacity to liberate itself from suborindation and exploitation by dominating classes. Moreover, no ruling class will ever give up its power and privilege voluntarily. This means that authentic socialism can only come to China through a proletarian revolution.