state capitalism maoist china 80s

[The Red Panther Party]

Comrades like Bob Avakian say they dont support Cuba beaus it is state capitalist yet they supported Mao Zedongs China and call it socialist, before it was destroyed by revisionists, can anyone give me a simple point by point answer showing what the differences were etwen"proper socialist" 80s china and "Sate Capitalist" Cuba

Maoist and Marxist Leninist answrs most wanted

Thank you

[Palingenisis]

Im not sure any Maoist would say that the People's Republic of China was completely socialist in the 1970s. Infact the whole "cultural revolution" was a at times bloody class struggle between proletarian/socialist forces and the bourgieouse.

[FSL]

80s China wasn't Maoist, it was "Dengist", reforms were initiated in 1978.


And there are two tendencies using the term "state-capitalist". Cliffites, a trotskyist tendency uses it for just about any socialist state that has ever existed. Maoists (and Hoxhaists) on the other hand use it for the post-1956 USSR and the countries that alligned themselves to it.
So, Avakian, a maoist defends China (I'm guessing up to a point in time) and considers Cuba to be state-capitalist.

[The Red Panther Party]

well 70s china then, sorry got the wrong decade

[The Red Panther Party]

80s China wasn't Maoist, it was "Dengist", reforms were initiated in 1978.


And there are two tendencies using the term "state-capitalist". Cliffites, a trotskyist tendency uses it for just about any socialist state that has ever existed. Maoists (and Hoxhaists) on the other hand use it for the post-1956 USSR and the countries that alligned themselves to it.
So, Avakian, a maoist defends China (I'm guessing up to a point in time) and considers Cuba to be state-capitalist.

yeah but what does he think makes cuba state capitalist and makes 70s china socialist.

[FSL]

yeah but what does he think makes cuba state capitalist and makes 70s china socialist.


Cuba at the time was alligned with the Soviet Union. In 1956 in the Communist Party's 20th congress changes in policy were announced. One thing that caught the eye of many was the condemnation from the central commitee of the CPSU of Josef Stalin and things like the Moscow trials.
But, beyond that, central planning of the economy was replaced by regional planning in each state, a debate started on whether companies should be pursuing profits and have more autonomy etc. China disagreed with these changes and distanced itself from the Soviet Union, considering it state-capitalist.

So he thinks that since Cuba accepted and agreed with the stance Soviet Union took after 1956, it was also state-capitalist. On the other hand, China, who disagreed and took an "anti-revisionist" stance, wasn't.

[The Red Panther Party]

can you name individual policies that maoists thought made russia state capitalist?
cheers

[flobdob]

Well from what I gather from various RCP documents (notably one by Raymond Lotta), they don't like Cuba because it was dominant on sugar exports back when the USSR was around, and because it "capitulated to soviet social imperialism". Both claims are bogus. Cuba in those times certainly did emphasise sugar production, but Castro well heeded Marti's words, that "A people commits suicide the day on which it bases its existence on a single crop". Cuba did produce other goods (notably cigars!). That said, the accusation bares very little standing; he aims to attack present day Cuba by referencing it's past, which is very absurd considering the contexts of both. His allegations of "capitulating to soviet social imperialism" are also utterly bogus; in an interview with Castro (printed in the book "Cold War"), he stresses precisely that Cuba came to oppose the USSR in many instances, from the October crisis onwards. Fact is, his accusations don't hold water, just like most of those used to attack socialist Cuba. Ultimately, it's because the RCP are pretty wacky and dogmatic, despite being right about some stuff.

[FSL]

A debate had started right after WW2 (to a lesser degree before then as well). Some prestigious economists and important party members like Voznesensky argued for changes in the economy.

Up until then a central plan was drawn that set the general guidelines for the economy, and more spicified annual plans also existed. Prices and production goals, investment in the various sectors, everything was decided through these plans. These plans were discussed in the local soviets and then, when approved, ratified by the supreme one and effectively became laws.

Now, this faction in the party that argued for changes (they were named tovarniki or "marketists" for a lack of a better word), wanted to give more autonomy to each company. They wanted them to be able to negotiate their prices, seek profit and invest out of their own money, not depending on the government budget.
Up until then workers got a bonus for surpassing a production goal. The marketeers wanted sales and profits to replace volume of production as the sourse of that bonus.
Kolkhoz were farm collectives were people would fulfill a quota set by the state and then sell the rest in markets. But the farm's land, the machinery, even the seeds, were a property of and provided by the state. The aim was to unite the kolkhozes in sovkhozes, state farms where people would work for a salary. Instead, the company that produced tractors and related machinery was essentially "privatized" as it became their property, instead of belonging to the state. Tax-breaks and cheap loans were also given.
A very important change was giving preference to production of articles of consumption instead of means of production. That breaks with the marxist rule for the "expanded reproduction" of the economy (which essentially means an economy able to keep growing indefinitely at a steady pace).

This "split" between the two sides became evident quickly (for example Voznesensky was executed in 1948) and more apparent in the 19th congress of the party. Stalin's "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" published in 1952 deals exactly with the marketists' criticism.

Most of these changes were eventually adopted. In 1965 another soviet economist, Lieberman, made the Times front page http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19650212,00.html
with a tagline "communist flirtation with profits". Of course, 1965 was after Khrushchev stopped being general secretary but many of Lieberman's most important works were published and praised in his years. At the same time, a quasi-fascist, Solzhenitsyn, who had been imprisoned for czarist propaganda and who would go on to praise Franco, was allowed to write a book about his life in prison, presented as some sort of a freedom fighter. Voznesensky along with many other former party members were rehabilitated.


Worth reading are "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" and also Mao's comments on it to get a better idea.

[bailey_187]

can you name individual policies that maoists thought made russia state capitalist?
cheers

The 1965 Kosygin economic reforms that made investment have to based on "profits". So the law of value replaced politics in command as the guiding principle in the economy

[AK]

...uses it for just about any socialist state that has ever existed...
That might have something to do with the fact that nearly every "socialist" state that existed in the past had some Soviet or PRC backing and support. Either economically or politically; before the revolution (or the Red Army invasion) or after. Both were state - and later even free market - capitalist so the states they helped eventually became spin-offs.

[AK]

Maoist and Marxist Leninist answrs most wanted
Sectarianism win.

[Uppercut]

That might have something to do with the fact that nearly every "socialist" state that existed in the past had some Soviet or PRC backing and support.

First, I would say that you need to seriously study the economic policies and achievements of the PRC during the Mao era. As well as aiding revolutions in Vietnam and Korea, China achieved quicker economic growth than most first world countries at that time. The right to speak out freely, air views clearly, hold debates, and the freedom to strike were written in the Constitution, of course this is not the case today...

Things have definately gotten much worse for the rural Chinese since Mao's death.


Sectarianism win.

No it doesn't.

[gorillafuck]

Sectarianism win.
Avakian is a Maoist so it makes sense that she/he would want answers from them.

[AK]

First, I would say that you need to seriously study the economic policies and achievements of the PRC during the Mao era. As well as aiding revolutions in Vietnam and Korea, China achieved quicker economic growth than most first world countries at that time. The right to speak out freely, air views clearly, hold debates, and the freedom to strike were written in the Constitution, of course this is not the case today...

Things have definately gotten much worse for the rural Chinese since Mao's death.
The PRC's economy was rapidly advanced and industrialised thanks to Mao and his government. But you mustn't forget, the Bourgeoisie did the same to Britain - doesn't mean the working class was better off. You praise the economy in the same way capitalists do - by looking at it simplisticly by saying "and the economy's done good and working well" without realising who it is that the economy is doing good for and working for.

[Uppercut]

the Bourgeoisie did the same to Britain - doesn't mean the working class was better off.

Britain exploited other nations for resources and growth, like India or Burma. This is not the case with China. Productions brigades and productions teams were responsible for ensuring that workers were not overworked or exploited and workers had the opportunity to take place in discussions. You really can't compare Britain's capitalist economy and China's (past) socialist economy.


You praise the economy in the same way capitalists do - by looking at it simplisticly by saying "and the economy's done good and working well" without realising who it is that the economy is doing good for and working for.

I already explained the benefits workers gained from the Mao-era (right to take part in debates and discussion, right to have a say in the workplace, the right to vote for representation or take part in elections, etc.). 200,000 barefoot doctors were trained in order to provide basic medical services to the rural Chinese. During the Mao-era, there was an eight hour day and guaranteed social services, but today, this does not exist in China. All in all, the Chinese economy was extremely beneficial and geared towards the Chinese workers and peasantry.

[AK]

Britain exploited other nations for resources and growth, like India or Burma. This is not the case with China. Productions brigades and productions teams were responsible for ensuring that workers were not overworked or exploited and workers had the opportunity to take place in discussions. You really can't compare Britain's capitalist economy and China's (past) socialist economy.
So because China didn't exploit other nations' workers, it's alright if it exploits its' own? Yes, Chinese workers were and are exploited. It's simple to see that. The government received a nice cash flow and the workers didn't. Well, I have no real first hand proof for this but it seems highly doubtful that Chinese workers and peasants could jump from what would be considered a fair and unexploitative wage to the shit-all they receive now.


I already explained the benefits workers gained from the Mao-era (right to take part in debates and discussion, right to have a say in the workplace, the right to vote for representation or take part in elections, etc.). 200,000 barefoot doctors were trained in order to provide basic medical services to the rural Chinese. During the Mao-era, there was an eight hour day and guaranteed social services, but today, this does not exist in China. All in all, the Chinese economy was extremely beneficial and geared towards the Chinese workers and peasantry.
You seem to be nostalgic for Mao's China. Might I remind you that whilst there were many improvements during Mao's time, the system was state capitalist and exploitive.

[Paul Cockshott]

The PRC's economy was rapidly advanced and industrialised thanks to Mao and his government. But you mustn't forget, the Bourgeoisie did the same to Britain - doesn't mean the working class was better off. You praise the economy in the same way capitalists do - by looking at it simplisticly by saying "and the economy's done good and working well" without realising who it is that the economy is doing good for and working for.

Rate of development much slower in the UK because a large part of the surplus was unproductively consumed in building stately homes and employing millions of domestic servants.

[Uppercut]

So because China didn't exploit other nations' workers, it's alright if it exploits its' own?

Exploitation? The workers still had their collective enterprises. In 1966, the proportion of industrial output value from collective and commune/brigade run industry to state run industry was 17:83; in 1976 it was 37:63. The cooperative industry began to take off more and more each year.

Medicine, education and the arts flourished in China. How is any of this "exploitative?"


I have no real first hand proof for this

Then don't talk about it.


it seems highly doubtful that Chinese workers and peasants could jump from what would be considered a fair and unexploitative wage to the shit-all they receive now.

It's called revisionism and privatization. You think the workers and peasants today enjoy these reforms? Most of the rural Chinese have no access to medical care today, and many of them are living under decaying conditions. I'm not saying the Mao-era was heaven on Earth, but if you do some serious research on the time period, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Infact, there are a few villages that still have their collective lifestyle in tact. Nanjie village is an example.


Might I remind you that whilst there were many improvements during Mao's time, the system was state capitalist and exploitive.

Why so sectarian?

[Kléber]

Russian industry never got beyond state capitalism. Lenin was honest about this. Capitalist wage differentials of 1:10 or more persisted throughout the history of the Soviet Union, even at the height of workers' power. The Soviet proletariat exited its Civil War victorious but badly wounded and was unseated from power by a privileged labor aristocracy which established a despotic monopoly over political life, enriched itself at the expense of the masses, and kept the revolution frozen in the transition state between capitalism and socialism, as the French bourgeois military caste had halted its own revolution on 18 Brumaire 1799. Like the French Republic, the USSR was founded on internationalist democratic principles but degenerated into a chauvinist empire due to the backwardness of economic conditions and the poor geo-strategic position of the revolutionary class, which was strong enough to take power but not to keep hold of it.

So the heretic Kosygin experimented with profit incentives, I guess that means the USSR was also a bourgeois state from 1921-1928 and 1934-1936, because policies encouraging competition and increased profit incentives for managers were implemented in those periods!?

In reality, when you cut through all the Kharijite theology about which state abandoned the righteous path and when, all these countries that were temporarily part of the Soviet bloc essentially had the same social form, which was established by the 1917 revolution, never developed much further, and was exported - usually by force, occasionally through peaceful negotiations - by the Soviet military-intelligence apparatus across half the world during its Bonapartist/social-imperialist fight against Western imperialism. Call it "revisionist" and make fun of it all you want, but North Korea, the most maligned of the "state capitalist" dictatorships, is still a workers' state that preserves public industry, even if it is the most deformed one to ever exist.

That doesn't mean that "state capitalism" is an adequate title for these countries, any more than "socialism," because they were/are workers' states frozen in the transition stage between socialism and capitalism, and the society can't be cleanly defined as either. In those countries (Cuba and DPRK) where the basic mode of production established in 1917 still reigns, it is a mistake to call the government "capitalist;" capitalism has not been entirely transcended but to simply call it bourgeois rule is a sectarian approach, because the bourgeoisie is not in power in Cuba or the DPRK, a bureaucratic caste is. Instead, we should fight for the continuation of the Cuban and Korean Revolutions which must proceed in a democratic and internationalist direction to succeed but have been betrayed and held back by the rich, corrupt leading "Communists" who took advantage of the weakness of the proletariat in the early 20th Century, and enslaved it under a phony-communist religion using Soviet military vehicles. We should oppose privatization and market-capitalist restoration, we should call for a political revolution by workers against the despotism of the bureaucratic military caste which seeks only to enrich itself and turn back the gains of previous generations of workers.

We must not consider deformed workers' states as "revisionist" or "state capitalist," it is a simplistic cop-out that implies there is no difference between a degenerated workers' state like the USSR and an outright capitalist state like the USA, this kind of foolish approach had communists murdering each other in the 60's and 70's, and also cheering the restoration of the profit system in Russia in 1991. Not to mention, it's an abandonment of the fight of class-conscious workers living under deformed workers' states to regenerate the world revolution in their countries under genuine proletarian leadership.

[AK]

It's called revisionism and privatization. You think the workers and peasants today enjoy these reforms? Most of the rural Chinese have no access to medical care today, and many of them are living under decaying conditions. I'm not saying the Mao-era was heaven on Earth, but if you do some serious research on the time period, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Personally I'd like to see the evidence that shows Mao-era workers once received a good wage.


Why so sectarian?
What I said never translated to sectarianism, I was just being critical of Mao's China.

[Kléber]

Personally I'd like to see the evidence that shows Mao-era workers once received a good wage.Actually, the Communist takeover in 1949 was greeted positively by the Chinese working class, and the CCP made efforts to ensure that wages slowly increased until the late 1970's. Ignoring little bureaucratic errors like the 17-30 million people starving to death in 1958-61, there are plenty of statistics to show that the standard of living increased rapidly under the PRC (mainly because the civil wars were over and the country was unified). The RCP loves to talk about how the average Chinese life expectancy tripled under Mao. Of course, that doesn't mean China was ever "socialist." Many countries with varying modes of production have enjoyed dramatic periodic rises in the standard of living. "Our superpower did this amazing achievement in X years, through its own thrifty hard work and righteous adherence to the good books, starting from scratch" is the bourgeois view of US history and the standard imperialist answer to any criticism of American society; communists would do well to move beyond this sort of thinking.

What's important is that the Chinese workers were not permitted political independence outside the militarized party apparatus, whose connections to the proletarian masses, severed since 1927, were not reattached after 1949 and have only grown more distant. Whenever working class dissent did flare up and lead to limited political independence for the workers (1952-3, 1957, 1967-8), it was forcibly put down by the state machinery of repression. While striking workers were being arrested for "counterrevolutionary" acts, Party bureaucrats - Mao and the "leftists" included - lived in gated communities with servants, chauffeurs, limousines, better food, clothing, salary and other privileges. After the "guardists" and "rebels" were purged in '68, the "leftists" had no real mass base of support outside the army, so it's no wonder the Gang of Four were toppled so easily. If they were really "socialist" with the workers firmly in power then the transition to "Dengist revisionism" would have required a civil war to restore capitalism!

Zhuangzi said that when a thief assembles their stolen goods and seals them with lock and chain, they just make a bigger thief's life easier, because that second thief will pick up everything, and their only fear will be that the locks and chains give way. Mao's clique were the little thieves who shackled the workers. Deng just grabbed what had been assembled by his predecessor.

Also, from 1949 until 1976 they redefined class as something you inherited from your father (or if you were a woman you could change your class status by "marrying down to marry up"), regardless of your actual relation to the means of production. So when they say "the workers were in power" it means a few people with "worker" stamped on their documents had servants and limousines, and the people with "capitalist" on their papers were shoveling coal in a labor camp. Very smart political trick, not very socialist though.


What I said never translated to sectarianism, I was just being critical of Mao's China. As if anyone could be more sectarian than the folks who said the Soviet Union was worse than the United States, and allying with American imperialism against the Soviet bloc was a progressive strategy for world revolution.. :P

[Uppercut]

Russian industry never got beyond state capitalism. Lenin was honest about this. Capitalist wage differentials of 1:10 or more persisted throughout the history of the Soviet Union, even at the height of workers' power. The Soviet proletariat exited its Civil War victorious but badly wounded and was unseated from power by a privileged labor aristocracy which established a despotic monopoly over political life, enriched itself at the expense of the masses, and kept the revolution frozen in the transition state between capitalism and socialism

I'm aware that by the end of the NEP, grain production was mostly in the hands of the kulaks, and some of them even raised prices in response to government warnings. This is one thing we can agree on.

As far as wages go, I know that there was a noticeable gap between different occupations. However, I don't think it's fair to say that no progress was made during that particular era. The number of scientists and doctors per capita drastically increased due to education reform, and literacy skyrocketed as well. But to be fair, I'm fully aware that some geneticists faced harassment and imprisonment.
Plus, 35% of what that particular enterprise brought in went to social services and cultural institutions for the workers.



as the French bourgeois military caste had halted its own revolution on 18 Brumaire 1799. Like the French Republic, the USSR was founded on internationalist democratic principles but degenerated into a chauvinist empire

If that's what you think, then whatever. I know I'm not going to change your mind so I won't waste time arguing.


the backwardness of economic conditions and the poor geo-strategic position of the revolutionary class, which was strong enough to take power but not to keep hold of it.

As for economic conditions during and for a time after the revolution, we're in agreement. The USSR was in no shape to fight any more wars or worry about the rest of Europe for the time being. Socialism in One Country, in my view, was used as a last resort to the failure of revolutions in the rest of the European continent. The Soviets didn't have much of a choice. It was either industrialize like crazy or risk getting crushed.


So the heretic Kosygin experimented with profit incentives, I guess that means the USSR was also a bourgeois state from 1921-1928 and 1934-1936, because policies encouraging competition and increased profit incentives for managers were implemented in those periods!?

While the NEP was still in effect, yes, most of the produce was in the hands of the Kulaks.

But last time I checked, managers were elected and were widely held accountable to the workers. The economic reforms in 1956 is when material and profit incentive was reintroduced and responsibility was eased towards the central planners, hindering some sectors of the economy. The Kruschev-Brezhnev era is when things really started to fall apart

[Uppercut]

Personally I'd like to see the evidence that shows Mao-era workers once received a good wage.

I already explained that growth of cooperative industry led to workers being able to manage things without the need of state intervention. In some communes, money was mostly abolished, seeing it as unnecessary, based on that specific commune's needs and conditions. A work-point system was established in its place. This ensured the equality of workers and farmers in their commune.


What I said never translated to sectarianism, I was just being critical of Mao's China.

Being critical is one thing. Calling it "state capitalist" and "exploitative" without having any evidence to back up what your saying is another.