Chinese minister speaks out against degenerate capitalist consumerism

[scarletghoul]

6 August 2010 Last updated at 19:12 Chinese minister blasts 'vulgar' media

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48644000/jpg/_48644401_009883000-1.jpg Foreign cultural influences have a growing profile in Chinese society
China's culture minister has lashed out at the country's broadcasters and publishers, saying much of what they produce is vulgar and kitsch.
Cai Wu said many Chinese publications were full of gossip and sensational stories advocating money-worship.
He accused regional governments of spending money on "vanity projects" instead of basic cultural facilities.
Mr Cai, formerly the head of China's information office, blamed the changes on China's move to a market economy.
His comments came in an interview with state news agency Xinhua.

He lashed out at what he called "vulgar productions" that advocated money-worship and consumerism. "We publish more than 300,000 books every year, but how many of them could be compared with the scriptures inherited from our ancestors?" he asked.
"We produce some 400 movies and hundreds of TV drama programmes each year, but how many of them will be recognised as classics?"
He added: "In today's world, a country's culture and economy are inseparable. A government must pay more attention to culture and originality if it wants to improve the quality of economic development."
Mr Cai said "vulgar publications" were a negative result of China's move to a market economy.
In June, China's media watchdog issued guidelines following concern over racy dating shows on television.
Programme makers have been accused of provoking contestants to spice up the programmes.

Analysis

Shirong Chen BBC China Editor
Cai Wu appears to be taking cues from President Hu Jintao who lamented two weeks ago that the country's cultural scene was filled with 'vanity, vulgarity, and kitsch'. Since then, some popular TV shows such as Take Me Out and Run For Love have been stopped.
And this week many top state performing arts teams have gathered in Beijing for a month of cultural programmes.
Now that China has become the world's number two economy, its leaders are turning their attention to the country's cultural influence.

This is very interesting, and Cai Wu is definitely correct. As I pointed out before, the Party seems to be letting more anti-capitalist voices be heard now. What changes do you think will be made, to culture as well as to economy ? It would be good even if they at least changed the culture, to stop it becoming like shitty South Korean and Japanese capitalist culture; however the CPC leaders seem to understand historical materialism, so they should know that an economic change must be made for cultural change to stick. Anyway what do you all think ??

[Revy]

In June, China's media watchdog issued guidelines following concern over racy dating shows on television.

Racy dating shows?!:crying: Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Adi Shankara]

What changes do you think will be made, to culture as well as to economy ?

If the same leaders remain in power in the PRC, than none. It'll be fully heading towards a capitalist free market state at breakneck speed (if it hasn't gone there already).

It would be good even if they at least changed the culture, to stop it becoming like shitty South Korean and Japanese capitalist culture;[/QUOTE]


Funny thing about Japan, but they are probably more socialist than China is at this juncture, if you consider the way their welfare and social services are set up.



however the CPC leaders seem to understand historical materialism, so they should know that an economic change must be made for cultural change to stick. Anyway what do you all think ??

I think it's more grandstanding by the same PRC leaders who promised more democratic reform, while having nothing actually change at all.

China is still very poor, and it's only growing poorer; you only see the major wealthy cities ling Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenzen; you never see the poverty that affects places like Guizhou, or Yunnan.

[Hoggy_RS]

Its funny for him to speak out against degenerate capitalist consumerism when he is a minister in a degenerate capitalist regime.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But he makes a great point at where more & more anti-capitalist voices are rising in China. I wouldn't go so far to say they're letting them rise, but rather that it's become uncontrollable really. There are so many anti-capitalist worker rallies in China now, so many speaking out. Those working for the CPC are starting to speak out. Give it a few more years, I believe we'll start to see something really rise up in China, something we've been waiting for for the past few decades now.

[Raúl Duke]

There are so many anti-capitalist worker rallies in China now, so many speaking out. Those working for the CPC are starting to speak out. Give it a few more years, I believe we'll start to see something really rise up in ChinaFor good or bad, something interesting will indeed occur in China (perhaps).

I imagine to see struggle within the party between factions (perhaps between 3 major ones) in the backdrop of the Chinese strike wave and attempts to solve the contradiction that the CPC is having vis-a-vis with the Chinese working class will take place. However, I bet a "moderate" faction might arise to provide social democratic reforms (not socialism) and appeals to nationalism.

The wishes of the Chinese working class seem more to have a comfortable living standards than outright socialism (of any stripe).

[Thirsty Crow]

This is very interesting, and Cai Wu is definitely correct. As I pointed out before, the Party seems to be letting more anti-capitalist voices be heard now. What changes do you think will be made, to culture as well as to economy ? It would be good even if they at least changed the culture, to stop it becoming like shitty South Korean and Japanese capitalist culture; however the CPC leaders seem to understand historical materialism, so they should know that an economic change must be made for cultural change to stick. Anyway what do you all think ??
These are not "anti-capitalist voices", but rather voices opposed to a cultural outcome of a economic shift which will most probably not be changed (since economic growth and political influence on a global scale are not something that can be discarded so easily by a party that holds the monopoly on decision making).

[RadioRaheem84]

I bet a "moderate" faction might arise to provide social democratic reforms (not socialism) and appeals to nationalism.

This is what I see happening more than anything. Yet, if they decide to act as a deterrent to US hegemony and provide aid to national liberation struggles then I would support the PRC.

Or the PRC could take a turn for the worse and really pump up the growing nationalism. I remember reading about a Chinese nationalist who was really egging on a Chinese supremacy movement a while back. What also made me nervous was seeing some Chinese international students at my former college that seemed to harbor really nationalist tendencies and would look down on American students in this manner that seemed to reek of supremacy. I just do not see the trend in the youth, especially the upwardly mobile, tilting toward socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

It is useless to have a moral critique of capitalism when there is no politico-economic critique of capitalism. Base determines superstructure.

[scarletghoul]

It is useless to have a moral critique of capitalism when there is no politico-economic critique of capitalism. Base determines superstructure.
Don't you think the CPC know this ? They may be capitalists but their capitalism is grounded in a Marxian understanding of things.

The Minister did say that the problem with culture was a result of capitalism.

That's why I think this is significant.

[Raúl Duke]

What also made me nervous was seeing some Chinese international students at my former college that seemed to harbor really nationalist tendencies and would look down on American students in this manner that seemed to reek of supremacy.

The ones in my university aren't like that. They are quite nice, although I notice that they only study business or technical fields and they somewhat look at you weird if you tell them you are studying a social science or liberal art.

[KurtFF8]

I believe that Tony Blair came out within the past year or two against "materialism" (aka consumerism in this context) as one of the major ills of Capitalist society.

That, too, was quite interesting considering his position in New Labour and as a recent head of a Western state. It, however, didn't take away form the fact that the Labour Party, along with the UK functioned as an agent for capitalist expansion and imperialism in the world, not socialism or real progress for the working class.

The CPC has said a few interesting things recently, I believe I posted an article where they called for a new proletarian revolution. I'm not too sure what direction China will go at the moment but we need to remember to contextualize statements like this.

[Nolan]

Rightists criticizing rampant consumerism is nothing new. It's like they have their heads so far up their asses they can't connect the dots.

I've more than once heard a conservative praise America as having the best system on earth and then chastise "godless materialism."

This has nothing to do with a rising anti-capitalist movement within the CPC. They (or at least anyone with power who matters) represent the capitalist ruling class wholeheartedly.

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't you think the CPC know this ? They may be capitalists but their capitalism is grounded in a Marxian understanding of things.

The Minister did say that the problem with culture was a result of capitalism.

That's why I think this is significant.

One phrase for you: the current CCP is pretty much fucked already.

[bricolage]

but their capitalism is grounded in a Marxian understanding of things.
Marxian capitalism?
Surely you have to admit that makes no sense whatsoever.

[scarletghoul]

Marxian capitalism?
Surely you have to admit that makes no sense whatsoever.
Much of Marx's work was oriented towards understanding capitalism. Is it not possible for a capitalist to accept Marx's correct exposition of capitalism and use it to his advantage, without adhering to the Marxist desire to overthrow capitalism ?

In fact Marx's historical materialism also helps them to justify this because, when applied mechanically as in Deng Xiaoping Theory, they can say to themselves "so what if we are capitalist exploiters; we are building up the productive forces so that some other generation somewhere down the line can create socialism". This is the official state justification. I'm not sure how many CPC leaders believe it now, but it's the official Dengist ideology. Dengism at least partially has its roots in Marxism, both in economic practice and theoretical justification.

[Chambered Word]

I don't think a country that has to allow anti-capitalist voices to be heard has anything to do with socialism, personally.

[El Rojo]

recently there has been a notable increase in the levels of worker militancy in China. peeps are getting hacked off at the naked expoitation of capitalism. so, i would guess this is part of the chinese executive's policy of sypathetic statements to this public opinion.

all rah rah rah and now action whatsoever

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They may be capitalists but their capitalism is grounded in a Marxian understanding of things.


What?

[Queercommie Girl]

What?

That guy is a fucking retard. He needs to jump off a high building like those Foxconn workers in China who committed suicide in order to clear up his damn head.

[KurtFF8]

The majority of the bourgeoisie in the former Soviet Union were Communists and have an understanding of Marxism.

If Marxist analysis really is the best way of understanding Capitalism, why can't capitalists use that analysis to further their own power? Seems like common sense. As a matter of fact, some even argue that capitalists read Marx when he was getting popular to learn for strategies to appease the working class during times of rebellion or upheaval.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good point Kurt. I never understood why cappies never read Marx to better understand their own system and profit off it. I mean the common sense practice of being a cappie probably tells them that Marx was right.

[Proletarian Ultra]

This is just cranky neo-Confucianism.

[FSL]

Much of Marx's work was oriented towards understanding capitalism. Is it not possible for a capitalist to accept Marx's correct exposition of capitalism and use it to his advantage, without adhering to the Marxist desire to overthrow capitalism ?

In fact Marx's historical materialism also helps them to justify this because, when applied mechanically as in Deng Xiaoping Theory, they can say to themselves "so what if we are capitalist exploiters; we are building up the productive forces so that some other generation somewhere down the line can create socialism". This is the official state justification. I'm not sure how many CPC leaders believe it now, but it's the official Dengist ideology. Dengism at least partially has its roots in Marxism, both in economic practice and theoretical justification.


To add on this (split it into two posts for being too damn long to read), the CPC in its documents claims that an antithesis between capital and workers does still exist but is second in importance to the antithesis between the low level of productivity and the "expanding needs".
China's economy was growing fast before the Deng reforms as well(a bit slower but the times were obviously different during the GPCR) but it was growing in a non-balanced pattern. Agriculture was developing rather slowly while heavy industry was racing.

Deng's "policies" were to fight leftist traits in China (and yes there were many) and to "seek truth from facts". Meaning that if something wasn't working as it should be, it should be fixed, instead of just putting our "theory" to practice just as before.
This led to a quick change in agriculture with the dismantling of the communes and liberalization measures in other sectors of the economy. The reasoning was that the productive forces and the relations of production must be at the same level for the economy -the society as a whole- to advance.

Stalin's critique to the revisionists in CPSU in 1952 was that they'd bring growth to a halt if they didn't accept that the relations of production had to advance for the economy to keep on growing as it was(turning forms of collective property to common social property, reducing the role of commodities in the economy etc).
The reformists in China argued for the opposite. Relations of production were "too advanced" in its case and didn't help the economy grow. This was especially the case in sectors like agriculture where conditions were very backward.

So they thought that by doing these reforms and "rationalizing" the relations of production, putting them in line with the material reality, they'd get an economy that would be more dynamic.

[FSL]

In a way that was shown to be true. China's economy has a great rate of growth. Of course, being essentially capitalist means that people like the peasants, who were supposed to be the first ones to gain from the changes, have trouble paying for their healthcare.


The state keeps on having an important role in the economy. The whole of the banking sector and major industries are state-dominated. It's certainly more to the left in that sense than say Venezuela.

The Hu-Wen leadership is more "centrist". Other then the strikes or statements like these, there was the Labor law of 2008 that aimed to make China less attractive to sweatshop capitalists (people in Bangladesh are striking now as they're the top manufacturers in that field, their government doesn't seem to mind them starving). There is an effort to curb illegal mining, punish corrupt officials etc. Lately, a law was passed to force mine managers to enter the mines along with the workers (such a law is unique) in an effort to improve safety standards. After the latest accident in which the managers miraculously escaped, they and the mine's owners were arrested.


My points basically are:
1) The economy is a capitalist one but *with* a marxist reasoning. That isn't good by default. Menshevicks or Trotskyists also had a marxist reasoning and personally I 'd disagree with both.
2) Having a capitalist economy means you have people that suffer from it and people that profited from it. These people do exist (both outside and inside the party).
3) These people would rather end with all that nonsense and just move to a market economy in a bourgeois-democratic context. Having the state in so many sectors means capitalists are "squeezed" in what's left and that competition is ruining their profit margins. China is the world's second economy but has only one guy in the Forbes 500. Just one guy in the Forbes 500? That's akin to slavery for capitalists.
4) What's more important is that these people don't have the upper hand in China. Yet anyway. In fact, it would seem they were closer to having the upper hand back in the Jiang Zemin days. So, that's a good thing.
5) I wouldn't expect any dramatic changes from China. But also I wouldn't be surprised to see the state adopting what one might call "socialist policies", even limited, in the following years. This would depend on the economy itself (a real estate bubble may show them capitalism has exhausted most of its "progressive role") but also on workers' struggles or special international circumstances.
6) Regarding the CPC itself. Other than the two extremes, those wanting a "democracy" and those wanting maoism, there is the majority. This majority is wrong on many things (in the same way that I'd say Khrushchev was wrong on many things) but don't mean to be wrong. They don't laugh when they hear about a mining accident while drinking champagne. That is my opinion anyway.


China's not what one would hope it could be but it's not a "lost case" in terms of who's in charge either. Look at India, a country of the same magnitude, with the same talent in attracting investments, the "largest democracy in the world". And yet, it ranks more than 40 places behind China in UN's Human Development Index.
This diference has to come from somewhere.

[Queercommie Girl]

The key point here is simply that today's China is not really socialist anymore, and to have some kind of "moral critique" of capitalism while completely ignoring the economic factors that brought about this kind of "moral degeneration" in the first place, as well as having no criticism of the underlying political and economic factors that caused all of the problems in China today, is really just hypocrisy of the worst type.

[Queercommie Girl]

In a way that was shown to be true. China's economy has a great rate of growth. Of course, being essentially capitalist means that people like the peasants, who were supposed to be the first ones to gain from the changes, have trouble paying for their healthcare.


The state keeps on having an important role in the economy. The whole of the banking sector and major industries are state-dominated. It's certainly more to the left in that sense than say Venezuela.

The Hu-Wen leadership is more "centrist". Other then the strikes or statements like these, there was the Labor law of 2008 that aimed to make China less attractive to sweatshop capitalists (people in Bangladesh are striking now as they're the top manufacturers in that field, their government doesn't seem to mind them starving). There is an effort to curb illegal mining, punish corrupt officials etc. Lately, a law was passed to force mine managers to enter the mines along with the workers (such a law is unique) in an effort to improve safety standards. After the latest accident in which the managers miraculously escaped, they and the mine's owners were arrested.


My points basically are:
1) The economy is a capitalist one but *with* a marxist reasoning. That isn't good by default. Menshevicks or Trotskyists also had a marxist reasoning and personally I 'd disagree with both.
2) Having a capitalist economy means you have people that suffer from it and people that profited from it. These people do exist (both outside and inside the party).
3) These people would rather end with all that nonsense and just move to a market economy in a bourgeois-democratic context. Having the state in so many sectors means capitalists are "squeezed" in what's left and that competition is ruining their profit margins. China is the world's second economy but has only one guy in the Forbes 500. Just one guy in the Forbes 500? That's akin to slavery for capitalists.
4) What's more important is that these people don't have the upper hand in China. Yet anyway. In fact, it would seem they were closer to having the upper hand back in the Jiang Zemin days. So, that's a good thing.
5) I wouldn't expect any dramatic changes from China. But also I wouldn't be surprised to see the state adopting what one might call "socialist policies", even limited, in the following years. This would depend on the economy itself (a real estate bubble may show them capitalism has exhausted most of its "progressive role") but also on workers' struggles or special international circumstances.
6) Regarding the CPC itself. Other than the two extremes, those wanting a "democracy" and those wanting maoism, there is the majority. This majority is wrong on many things (in the same way that I'd say Khrushchev was wrong on many things) but don't mean to be wrong. They don't laugh when they hear about a mining accident while drinking champagne. That is my opinion anyway.


China's not what one would hope it could be but it's not a "lost case" in terms of who's in charge either. Look at India, a country of the same magnitude, with the same talent in attracting investments, the "largest democracy in the world". And yet, it ranks more than 40 places behind China in UN's Human Development Index.
This diference has to come from somewhere.

Most of the difference between the development of China and India originates from the Maoist days when the industrial, agricultural and educational infrastructure were first laid down. These are being slowly eroded now. In a sense, China is running on "inertia" from the past.

There is no reason to trust the bureaucratic-capitalists in power, even subjectively (i.e. they are still honest Marxists just with mistaken policies). The fact is that 90% of the richest people in China have close connections with the higher levels of the CCP. This is not "normal" even by the standards of American capitalism, let alone any kind of "socialism".

Marxist rhteroic, like nationalist rhteroic, is just being used in China now as a tool by the elites to hold onto power over the people. How can a state pretend to be socialist when socialist organisations like the Maoist Communist Party are officially illegal? When strikes and trade unions are illegal? Legalise all of the Maoist organisations first and then we might have some ground to re-consider.

[FSL]

Most of the difference between the development of China and India originates from the Maoist days when the industrial, agricultural and educational infrastructure were first laid down. These are being slowly eroded now. In a sense, China is running on "inertia" from the past.

There is no reason to trust the bureaucratic-capitalists in power, even subjectively (i.e. they are still honest Marxists just with mistaken policies). The fact is that 90% of the richest people in China have close connections with the higher levels of the CCP. This is not "normal" even by the standards of American capitalism, let alone any kind of "socialism".

Marxist rhteroic, like nationalist rhteroic, is just being used in China now as a tool by the elites to hold onto power over the people. How can a state pretend to be socialist when socialist organisations like the Maoist Communist Party are officially illegal? When strikes and trade unions are illegal?

I'm sure most chinese are organized in trade unions. They'd be the official trade unions though you'd probably wouldn't like (then again some leftists were cheering for Solidarity back in the 80s). There are legal strikes. Legal strikes that are supported by the government. I'm not familiar with the chinese maoist CP but if its has as its aim a revolutionary overthrow of the regime (as it probably would) then banning it seems reasonable.
The "90% of the richest people have connections with the higher levels of the CP" is just fancy words. You ran a poll? Maybe they have connections because it's obviously government will need to deal with these people in some way or another? If you have proof that the CC of the party approves of preferential treatment towards this 90% I'd like to see it.

It's been more than 30 years since the days of maoist policies have passed. I happen to have an "average" appreciation of Mao. It was his idea to include patriotic capitalists in his bloc of revolutionary classes. It was his idea to then move in a full-fledged collectivization drive in 1958 (when he feared the Soviet Union was going off track and thought that China needed a way to be independent) that came to nothing. USSR's collectivization succeeded and one reason might be that objective conditions were in fact better. Mao allied with Nixon etc etc.

I hold the CPSU's policies before 1956 in much higher regard than I will ever hold Mao's. And not even they were able to provide the economy with steam for decades.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm sure most chinese are organized in trade unions. They'd be the official trade unions though you'd probably wouldn't like (then again some leftists were cheering for Solidarity back in the 80s). There are legal strikes. Legal strikes that are supported by the government. I'm not familiar with the chinese maoist CP but if its has as its aim a revolutionary overthrow of the regime (as it probably would) then banning it seems reasonable.


Yes, "puppet trade unions" of the state that actually objectively side with the capitalists more than the workers. I don't care about semantics. "Trade unions" don't even have to be called "trade unions", the key is that they are supposed to be organisations that look after worker's interests. In China now these organisations don't exist, so there are no real trade unions.



The "90% of the richest people have connections with the higher levels of the CP" is just fancy words. You ran a poll? Maybe they have connections because it's obviously government will need to deal with these people in some way or another? If you have proof that the CC of the party approves of preferential treatment towards this 90% I'd like to see it.
No it's not just fancy words. I obviously didn't do the poll myself but it's quite obvious if you look at official statistics. I've worked with socialist organisations that operate in China such as the CWI (Chinaworker) that publishes a lot of these statistical figures.

They have connections in the sense that the super-rich in China now are the scions and family members of the top bureaucrats. Li Peng's son for instance nows lives in a life of hyper-luxury in Singapore. The CCP of today is just one big feudal-capitalist aristocratic family.

This point shouldn't even matter. Have you ever read any of Deng Xiaoping's actual writings? Although Deng Xiaoping brought in market reforms, he also wrote that a socialist society must be able to remove severe economic inequality as well as keep the majority of the economy state-owned, and have a comprehensive welfare system for the majority of the population. Today in China the majority of the economy is privately-owned, not state-owned, and the income disparity is completely out of control, with China's Ginni index higher than that of the US. And there is hardly any social welfare left in China. So forget any kind of Maoist or Trotskyist orthodoxy, even by Deng Xiaoping's own standard China today is clearly not socialist.



It's been more than 30 years since the days of maoist policies have passed. I happen to have an "average" appreciation of Mao. It was his idea to include patriotic capitalists in his bloc of revolutionary classes. It was his idea to then move in a full-fledged collectivization drive in 1958 (when he feared the Soviet Union was going off track and thought that China needed a way to be independent) that came to nothing. USSR's collectivization succeeded and one reason might be that objective conditions were in fact better. Mao allied with Nixon etc etc.

I hold the CPSU's policies before 1956 in much higher regard than I will ever hold Mao's. And not even they were able to provide the economy with steam for decades.
To be frank, I don't care what you think personally. I'm countering you here because you are spreading wrong information about the Chinese state and the status of the system in China today which might objectively mislead other people and have a negative impact on the revolutionary situation in China.

The economic growth of the last 3 decades is largely based on the selling off of state-owned assets, extremely low-end processing and the speculative sector such as the property market. There has been hardly any increases in real productivity, unlike during the Maoist decades when there were rapid increases in industrialisation and productivity in all areas.

If you care to examine the evidence of environmental degradation in China for example, you will find evidence that much of the irrigation network constructed in China during the Maoist era has been eroded due to the lack of maintenance. That's what I mean by eroding the positive constructions of the past. Not to mention the prevalence of a large number of shoddy products on the Chinese market - from food to clothing.

Whether a system is socialist or not must be decided by the working class itself, not by some dogmatic person sitting in a high ivory tower detached from the reality that workers face day-to-day. Most Chinese workers would not consider China a socialist state today, which is why year after year the number of "mass incidents" and strikes keep on increasing, many of which actually break the law. If "socialism" means Chinese workers sweating for over 14 hours a day in Victorian-era conditions and workers committing suicide as a sign of protest towards their bosses, then frankly I'd rather not have this "socialism". Objectively then even the democratic capitalism promoted by the likes of Liu Xiaobo might actually be a better alternative.

Yes, the genuine Maoists in China are considering the complete overthrow of the current regime, or least keep that in mind as a potential possibility, and I give them my full personal and ideological support.

Now given the fact that the People's Republic of China is officially a Maoist state, with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the fundamental and primary cornerstone of the socialist constitution, why do you think there are numerous Maoist organisations that want to overthrow the current PRC regime? Unless you happen to think that all of them are hopelessly misguided, it does mean a lot. We are not talking about "Solidarity"-style movements that might be implicitly Western-led, we are not even talking about just the Trotskyists like the CWI, but actually orthodox Maoists who if anything, tend to be too nationalistic when it comes to considering the status of the Chinese state. Doesn't the fact that orthodox Maoists all over China are now 'rising up in arms' not tell you anything about the concrete political and economic situation in China today? Maybe you don't know this but today there are even orthodox Dengists in China calling for the regime to make drastic changes or otherwise it would be "too late".

[FSL]

I like how you keep repeating that "China is not socialist" in an effort to refute my claim that "China is capitalist".


Answers to most things in a mostly random order:
Thank you, but I have read a number of Deng's writings as well as works dealing with China's economy.
The CPC has nearly 70 million members. That's one huge feudal-capitalist aristocratic family.


Last time I checked, selling state owned assets doesn't by itself mean higher growth. To think that means you equate capitalism with high growth which is all but correct.
When I spoke of chinese growth I had in mind presentations like this one http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ecshua/eca5374/Capital%20Formation%20and%20Economic%20Growth%20in %20China.pdf.

It is more objective than one would expect, presenting China's economy as a quickly growing one since the 50s and not only after the reforms started. It's also using statistics straight from China. It doesn't account for any purely logistic, "speculative" increase in GDP but instead shows the basic sectors of the economy. The picture painted is that income in general rises a bit faster since 1978 (I compare the decades 1968-78 and 78-88 as in 68-78 china's economy wasn't mixed as it was in the 50s), fueled by a better performance in agriculture and construction and slowed down somewhat by a less "staggering" performance of China's industry. So unless you want to claim that now China is falsifying these statistics and that them chinese products flooding markets are an illusion, you'll need to accept that China's economy in terms of volume manages pretty well.

I have seen capitalist papers claim that China's economy is dominated by the private sector. "People's Daily" puts the private sector's share at 1/3 of the industrial product. I am only certain that China owns giants like PetroChina or a number of construction companies that would be private anywhere else, so it seems likely for the state to indeed have an increased role in the economy.

Obviously, workers at Foxxcon suffer. And even more obvious is the fact that they suffer at the hands of their bosses who reap profits from their underpaid labor, not of the state. Some workers in Russia in 1925 also worked for capitalists. They also suffered and were also exploited. Did that immediately change the character of the state?


CPC claims to be guided by Marxism-Leninism not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Mao is highly regarded as a former GC of the party, as the leader of the revolution, but it's Deng's works that are of more relevance today.
I can see why maoists would rise against modern day China, but I have seen maoists attack Vietnam and declare the USSR to be the primary threat to workers. If I were there I'd argue for China's departure from Maoism as well as its departure from Dengism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Do either of you guys recommend any books or series of essays on China and it's road to socialism through capitalism? Would recommend Minqi Li?

[RadioRaheem84]

Even David Harvey admits to the State trying to hold back an emerging capitalist class in his book A Brief History Of Neo Liberalism. Any truth to this?

[Queercommie Girl]

I like how you keep repeating that "China is not socialist" in an effort to refute my claim that "China is capitalist".


If you think China is already capitalist but is still somehow "Marxist", that is a very strange viewpoint. Firstly, it contradicts the basic principles of Marxism, namely that no socialist superstructure, even a completely superficial one, can exist on top of a capitalist economic basis. The phrase "Marxist capitalism" is a complete oxymoron. And don't give me Lenin's NEP or the post-Stalin Soviet revisionism as an example of "Marxist capitalism", because it is clear that in those cases the vast majority of the economy was still socialist-based, and the economic inequality was quite slight. That's nothing like capitalist China today with its predominantly private sector and runaway inequality, with a Ginni index higher than that of the US.

Secondly, Deng Xiaoping never ever said anything along the lines of "lets build capitalism first in China, but under a Marxist general theoretical framework". Yes, he introduced market reforms, but he was also absolutely clear that China must essentially remain socialist, which he understands as being a society that controls significant economic inequality, where most of the economy is state-owned, and where there is at least basic welfare for the majority of the people. Today China no longer fits with Deng's idea of what a first-stage socialist society should look like.



Answers to most things in a mostly random order:
Thank you, but I have read a number of Deng's writings as well as works dealing with China's economy.
The CPC has nearly 70 million members. That's one huge feudal-capitalist aristocratic family.
I meant to say that the ruling bloc in the CCP, or most of them, are like one big feudal-capitalist aristocratic family, not the entire CCP. In fact, personally I don't completely write-off the CCP in its entirety. Among the lower layers of the party, there are still many socialists, but objectively there is no chance for them to restore power to socialism without some kind of revolutionary movement from below.



Last time I checked, selling state owned assets doesn't by itself mean higher growth. To think that means you equate capitalism with high growth which is all but correct.
When I spoke of chinese growth I had in mind presentations like this one http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ecshua/eca5374/Capital%20Formation%20and%20Economic%20Growth%20in %20China.pdf.

It is more objective than one would expect, presenting China's economy as a quickly growing one since the 50s and not only after the reforms started. It's also using statistics straight from China. It doesn't account for any purely logistic, "speculative" increase in GDP but instead shows the basic sectors of the economy. The picture painted is that income in general rises a bit faster since 1978 (I compare the decades 1968-78 and 78-88 as in 68-78 china's economy wasn't mixed as it was in the 50s), fueled by a better performance in agriculture and construction and slowed down somewhat by a less "staggering" performance of China's industry. So unless you want to claim that now China is falsifying these statistics and that them chinese products flooding markets are an illusion, you'll need to accept that China's economy in terms of volume manages pretty well.
The difference is qualitative. Yes, there are lots of "made-in-chinas" these days, but much of the increases in productivity in the last few decades come from merely low-end processing in sweatshop factories. This clearly contrasts with the Maoist years where much of the industrial progress is in relatively high-end sectors, like military engineering, space industry and aerospace industry. China had hardly any industry before 1949. But by the 1970s China could construct rockets and nuclear missiles. In fact, since Deng came to power, China actually scrapped a lot of high-end industrial research projects, such as the project to construct China's own cargo planes and aircraft carriers.

To only look at the quantitative but not the qualitative is to be un-dialectical and therefore incorrect. (I hope you are not one of those idiots - unfortunately there are too many of them in the West - who think that the application of dialectical materialism in economics is "un-Marxist")



I have seen capitalist papers claim that China's economy is dominated by the private sector. "People's Daily" puts the private sector's share at 1/3 of the industrial product. I am only certain that China owns giants like PetroChina or a number of construction companies that would be private anywhere else, so it seems likely for the state to indeed have an increased role in the economy.
Actually here I'd rather put my faith in the analysis of the Financial Times than a party propaganda organ like the People's Daily.

To say that today the private sector only occupy 1/3 of the economy is quite ridiculous. And even a lot of the so-called "state-owned enterprises" aren't really owned by the state anymore, but by bureaucratic capitalists with close links to the ruling bloc of the CCP.



Obviously, workers at Foxxcon suffer. And even more obvious is the fact that they suffer at the hands of their bosses who reap profits from their underpaid labor, not of the state. Some workers in Russia in 1925 also worked for capitalists. They also suffered and were also exploited. Did that immediately change the character of the state?
You can't be serious to compare the sweatshop conditions of many factories in China today with the few capitalist enterprises that existed during Lenin's NEP, or Maoist China in the 1950s, or post-Stalin revisionist USSR. They are a world apart, unless you believe in the right-wing propaganda that tends to demonise the state of things in socialist countries. Yes, technically both are capitalist, but it isn't true that wherever you have capitalist exploitation in the technical sense, you will get actual suffering on the part of the workers. Not all capitalists are equal. Some are much more reactionary than others. And the capitalists running the show in China today are far more exploitative (by several orders of magnitude) than the capitalists that existed during the NEP or early Maoist China.



CPC claims to be guided by Marxism-Leninism not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Mao is highly regarded as a former GC of the party, as the leader of the revolution, but it's Deng's works that are of more relevance today.
I can see why maoists would rise against modern day China, but I have seen maoists attack Vietnam and declare the USSR to be the primary threat to workers. If I were there I'd argue for China's departure from Maoism as well as its departure from Dengism.
I see you are what the orthodox Maoists would call a "Soviet revisionist".

Personally I'm not an orthodox Maoist. I'm also significantly influenced by Trotskyism but I don't completely write-off Stalin and I'm not an orthodox Trotskyist either. So my problem with you here is not really with your political principle. In fact, if China today actually returns to the state of how the USSR was like during its "revisionist" epoch, it would be a great improvement indeed. Even if China returns to how it's supposed to be like under orthodox Dengism, it would be an improvement. You should note that even Dengists in China today are strongly calling on the central government to reverse the political direction of China towards socialism or it will be "too late". It's not just the orthodox Maoists that are rising up.

Also, according to the constitution of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong Thought is indeed one of the cornerstones of the constitution, not just Marxism-Leninism. And this hasn't been changed even since Deng came to power.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, in accordance with Business Week, up to 70% of PRC GDP might be attributed to private companies back in 2005. As for the current data on the private capitalist sector's role in Chinese economy, figures recently released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics show that private companies in China now employ 70 million people, or 80 percent of China’s total industrial workforce. True, the state-owned companies have remained the largest in relative terms but after they were "re-structured" in 1999 the public sector of PRC is almost indistinguishable from the private one with regard to its internal organization.

[FSL]

As for the current data on the private capitalist sector's role in Chinese economy, figures recently released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics show that private companies in China now employ 70 million people, or 80 percent of China’s total industrial workforce.

There's obviously something wrong with that.
China's labour force is near 800 millions and its "industrial workforce" is somewhere around 200-250 million at the very least. 70 is not 80% of 250.

[human strike]

Let him attack the degenerate capitalist spectacle, it will only hasten the fall of his degenerate capitalist state.

[FSL]

On NEP.

By Lenin in 1922 in the 11th party congress



We are now forming mixed companies—I shall have something to say about these later on—which, like our state trade and our New Economic Policy as a whole, mean that we Communists are resorting to commercial, capitalist methods

...it is really “the last and decisive battle”, not against international capitalism—against that we shall yet have many “last and decisive battles”—but against Russian capitalism, against the capitalism that is growing out of the small peasant economy

The other day I read an article by Comrade Rakosi in No. 20 of The Communist International on a new book by Otto Bauer, from whom at one time we all learned, but who, like Kautsky, became a miserable petty bourgeois after the war.[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm#fw02) Bauer now writes: “There, they are now retreating to capitalism! We have always said that it was a bourgeois revolution.”
And the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, all of whom preach this sort of thing, are astonished when we declare that we shall shoot people for such things

And here we must squarely put the question: Wherein lies our strength and what do we lack? We have quite enough political power. I hardly think there is anyone here who will assert that on such-and-such a practical question, in such and-such a business institution, the Communists, the Communist Party, lack sufficient power. There are people who think only of this, but these people are hopelessly looking backward and cannot understand that one must look ahead. The main economic power is in our hands. All the vital large enterprises, the railways, etc., are in our hands


By Stalin in 1925 in the 14th party congress



Agriculture. Its gross output in 1924-25, comparing its level with the pre-war level, that of 1913, reached 71 per cent. In other words, the output in 1913 amounted to something over 12,000 million rubles at pre-war prices, and in 1924-25, the output amounted to something over 9,000 million rubles

Industry. Taking all industry — state, concession and private — its gross output in 1913 amounted to 7,000 million rubles; in 1924-25, the gross output amounted to 5,000 million. That is 71 per cent of the pre-war level.

If we compare the output of state and co-operative industry, associated in one way or another, with the output of private industry, we get the following: in 1923-24, the output of state and co-operative industry amounted to 76.3 per cent of the total industrial output for the year, while that of private industry amounted to 23.7 per cent; in 1924-25, however, the output of state and co-operative industry amounted to 79.3 per cent of the total, and that of private industry was no longer 23.7 per cent, but 20.7 per cent.

[FSL]

What can we draw from these?
Firstly, that unlike what was said, the state wasn't "dominating" the economy. Its biggest part was agriculture (where kulaks and smaller peasants had a presence, the latter often unable to commercialize their crop). And even in industry, the private sector was quite important with more than 20% of the output.
But the state still owned the major industries -the so called strategic sectors of the economy- and didn't shy away from exercising its power.

So a "retreat" to capitalism doesn't necessarily presuppose the retreat to a capitalist state (it does create conditions that could cause this though).

Another thing, and more important, was that they exactly viewed the NEP as such: a retreat. A potential danger that would force them to stay alert. They did recognise the socialist elements in their economy, in the industries where capitalists didn't have a presence and where production was determined based on social needs, not profit but they didn't consider their economy socialist.

CPC nowadays instead thinks -officially at least- it's walking on some "national road to socialism", that it is renovating socialism. That socialism can and does include elements of capitalism, private property, market mechanisms.
This is the main difference between the CPSU back then and the CPC now. The first had a correct, revolutionary line based on the reality they were facing while the other one even though it acts on the same manner to some degree, does so following a dangerously revisionist line. And it means that the CPC is much more susceptible to bourgeois elements, much like the communist party in the Soviet Union of the 80s.


But it's one thing to say "China is one step away from a counter-revolution" and another thing to say "China is a degenerate capitalist state". Water heated to 99°C doesn't exactly satisfy your thirst but it is water.

[Queercommie Girl]

What can we draw from these?
Firstly, that unlike what was said, the state wasn't "dominating" the economy. Its biggest part was agriculture (where kulaks and smaller peasants had a presence, the latter often unable to commercialize their crop). And even in industry, the private sector was quite important with more than 20% of the output.
But the state still owned the major industries -the so called strategic sectors of the economy- and didn't shy away from exercising its power.

So a "retreat" to capitalism doesn't necessarily presuppose the retreat to a capitalist state (it does create conditions that could cause this though).

Another thing, and more important, was that they exactly viewed the NEP as such: a retreat. A potential danger that would force them to stay alert. They did recognise the socialist elements in their economy, in the industries where capitalists didn't have a presence and where production was determined based on social needs, not profit but they didn't consider their economy socialist.

CPC nowadays instead thinks -officially at least- it's walking on some "national road to socialism", that it is renovating socialism. That socialism can and does include elements of capitalism, private property, market mechanisms.
This is the main difference between the CPSU back then and the CPC now. The first had a correct, revolutionary line based on the reality they were facing while the other one even though it acts on the same manner to some degree, does so following a dangerously revisionist line. And it means that the CPC is much more susceptible to bourgeois elements, much like the communist party in the Soviet Union of the 80s.


But it's one thing to say "China is one step away from a counter-revolution" and another thing to say "China is a degenerate capitalist state". Water heated to 99°C doesn't exactly satisfy your thirst but it is water.

Well I've always said, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, that technically China today is still a "deformed worker's state", a "highly deformed" one in fact. I never agreed with the "state-capitalist" Trots (I prefer the "deformed worker's state" Trots) and I don't think China today is completely capitalist in the strictest technical sense.

However, objectively much of what remains "socialist" in China is nothing but the superstructure in the most superficial and often hypocritical sense. The "revisionism" of the CCP today is not only a completely different ball of game from Lenin's NEP, but it also far exceeds the level of revisionism in the USSR in the 1980s. Indeed, it is quite a wonder that China has not already fallen apart like the USSR did. Partly this is due to the effects of Chinese nationalism, partly it is also due to the fact that the CCP ruling bloc ever since the days of Deng Xiaoping have firmly held onto political and military power, there has never been anyone like Gorbachev in China's ruling bloc.

During Lenin's NEP, privately-owned economy may have reached as much as 20% of the overall economy, but that is clearly still a minority. And as you said, it was not revisionism because there was absolutely no desire to return to capitalism in any fundamental sense by Lenin. Today's China is a completely different ball of game. Much of the economy is already privately owned, despite what papers like the People's Daily might say (bit of a tangent: you can't even buy the People's Daily in most parts of China now), and even much of the nominally "state-owned" economy is "state-owned" in name only. Public welfare is largely gone, and indeed privatisation has gone much much further than during the revisionist period in the USSR, leading to a Ginni Index that not only far exceeds that of the USSR during any period, but actually higher than that of the United States, the greatest imperialist and capitalist power on the planet. Deng Xiaoping may have been a hypocritical liar as the orthodox Maoists claim, or he may have been genuine when he insisted that despite limited market reforms, China must essentially stay on the socialist path. But it doesn't really matter now, Deng is dead, and China now has gone further down the road to capitalism than Deng ever planned in writing. This is why orthodox Dengists in China are stating that China today is in a state of emergency and is seriously facing the threat of a "bourgeois colour revolution".

So technically China is still a "highly deformed socialist state", but in actual practice it is so close to a completely degenerate capitalist state that in terms of planning revolutionary activism, it doesn't really matter so much. The only serious implication of the fact that China is still a "deformed worker's state" rather than a completely degenerate capitalist state is that socialists should still defend China "externally" against the likes of American imperialism, which even some Trotskyists recognise, e.g. during the Sparticist League's demonstrations they had the slogan of "unconditionally defending the Chinese deformed worker's state" against Western imperialism.

(By the way, comrade, I do appreciate your use of the dialectical "water example". I must say I'm quite surprised by the number of anti-dialecticians and their frankly quite hostile attitude towards dialectical materialism in general)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Even David Harvey admits to the State trying to hold back an emerging capitalist class in his book A Brief History Of Neo Liberalism. Any truth to this?

Nope. None at all, at least not in today's China.

[KC]

Well I've always said, here on RevLeft and elsewhere, that technically China today is still a "deformed worker's state", a "highly deformed" one in fact. I never agreed with the "state-capitalist" Trots (I prefer the "deformed worker's state" Trots) and I don't think China today is completely capitalist in the strictest technical sense.You're being too categorical. To say that China is only "technically" a deformed workers state but "not yet completely capitalist" (my emphasis) is dealing in abstractions that simply don't exist in reality. I mean for example one could even argue that China isn't "completely capitalist" because of the non-capitalist sectors of its economy, no matter how transitory, fragmented and localized. Obviously such an argument is, while true, silly.

[Queercommie Girl]

You're being too categorical. To say that China is only "technically" a deformed workers state but "not yet completely capitalist" (my emphasis) is dealing in abstractions that simply don't exist in reality. I mean for example one could even argue that China isn't "completely capitalist" because of the non-capitalist sectors of its economy, no matter how transitory, fragmented and localized. Obviously such an argument is, while true, silly.

What is your political tendency? Among "deformed worker's state" Trotskyists (I don't agree with the entire "state-capitalist" theory so don't tell me about that, I reject the whole "state-capitalist" nonsense flat out), there is still a serious debate going on about the exact character of the Chinese state. I wouldn't call such a debate meaningless or "silly".

One practical implication of China today being a "deformed worker's state" is that socialists should still defend the Chinese state "externally" with respect to Western imperialism, and should not explicitly support ethnic separatist movements. I agree with the fact that as far as activism in China itself is concerned, it is not of any significant relevance.

[Reznov]

Oh the irony of this guy saying this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One practical implication of China today being a "deformed worker's state" is that socialists should still defend the Chinese state "externally" with respect to Western imperialism

Are you kidding me? Western imperialism against a nuclear nation of over a billion strong, with an economy that's the equivalent of an out-of-control freight train (which the Chinese government has been trying to slow down) and a system of lending and finance that has ensnared the United States and made it thrall to it's loans? If anything you should be worried about China stepping up and becoming the new kid on the imperialist block as US hegemony slowly-but-surely declines. China isn't a "worker's state", deformed or otherwise.


and should not explicitly support ethnic separatist movements.

Despite the fact that I generally do not support ethic separatist/NL movements, what is your reasoning for that? Why should movements in China not be supported, when Trots the world over are known for supporting every ethnic minority under the sun in their struggles against state power?

[KC]

What is your political tendency? Among "deformed worker's state" Trotskyists (I don't agree with the entire "state-capitalist" theory so don't tell me about that, I reject the whole "state-capitalist" nonsense flat out), there is still a serious debate going on about the exact character of the Chinese state. I wouldn't call such a debate meaningless or "silly".A lot of debates that go on in the left are silly. You didn't respond to my point.


One practical implication of China today being a "deformed worker's state" is that socialists should still defend the Chinese state "externally" with respect to Western imperialism, and should not explicitly support ethnic separatist movements. I agree with the fact that as far as activism in China itself is concerned, it is not of any significant relevance.

What do you mean when you say "western imperialism" and how do you "defend China against it"?

[NGNM85]

"We produce some 400 movies and hundreds of TV drama programmes each year, but how many of them will be recognised as classics?"

Yeah, this guy's got his head on straight. He knows better than to quibble about minutiae like torture, censorship, oppression, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are you kidding me? Western imperialism against a nuclear nation of over a billion strong, with an economy that's the equivalent of an out-of-control freight train (which the Chinese government has been trying to slow down) and a system of lending and finance that has ensnared the United States and made it thrall to it's loans? If anything you should be worried about China stepping up and becoming the new kid on the imperialist block as US hegemony slowly-but-surely declines. China isn't a "worker's state", deformed or otherwise.


China's nuclear capacity is nothing compared with that of the US or Russia, and indeed is even smaller than that of France and the UK.

China's "rapid growth" in the last three decades is largely all in the "low-end processing" sectors, not high-tech or any other things that really matter. In fact, ever since Deng came to power, China cancelled many projects related to national defence, such as the plan to build China's own aircraft carriers and cargo planes.

Despite all of China's "growth", it is still largely a developing country, and its military power is nothing compared to that of Russia. Since Russia did not become a global imperialist power in its own right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is no way that China would become one either.

China's ruling class mainly just oppresses its own people, not like the American ruling class which throws its weight around the entire world. (Iraq, Afghanistan, you name it) This is why America today is an imperialist power but China is not.



Despite the fact that I generally do not support ethic separatist/NL movements, what is your reasoning for that? Why should movements in China not be supported, when Trots the world over are known for supporting every ethnic minority under the sun in their struggles against state power?Most "bourgeois colour revolution"-style ethnic separatist movements are essentially supported by American imperialism. These separatist movements have no socialist or proletarian character, but only a capitalist or even feudal (e.g. Dalai Lama) character. So objectively even if these movements succeed, there would be no concrete benefits to the working class people of these regions. For instance, what concrete benefits have the peoples of the central Asian republics that used to be a part of the USSR receive ever since they became independent? Nothing. I'm a pragmatist, if something does not bring about concrete benefits in the economic sense, then it is useless. I don't really care about abstract nationalist sentiments, one way or another. I also refuse to explicitly support any movement that is also explicitly supported by the US.

Some Trots tend to over-support separatist movements, but while I've been significantly influenced by Trotskyism, I do not identify as a Trotskyist.

[Queercommie Girl]

A lot of debates that go on in the left are silly. You didn't respond to my point.


It seems to be rather egoistical of you to think that you are always right as a lone individual and yet the debates that large sections of the left engage in are all "silly".

What political tendency are you? It's quite strange that you've taken care to hide everything on your profile. Doesn't seem to match with Marx's idea that socialists should never hide their political views.

China is technically still a "deformed worker's state" because the superficial superstructure of a socialist state is still there. According to the Chinese constitution today, Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought are still the cornerstones of the Chinese state and constitution. The fact that all of this is largely a sign of hypocrisy doesn't change the fact that the bourgeois restoration has not completed in China the way it had done so in the former USSR and in Eastern Europe.



What do you mean when you say "western imperialism" and how do you "defend China against it"?


What is "imperialism"? Lenin gave a very precisely definition of it. Chinese capitalism today has not yet reached this level, but Western imperialism has.

Chinese capitalism essentially only oppresses the people of China. American imperialism oppresses people all over the world, from America itself to Cuba and Iraq and Afghanistan and Africa. That is also a crucial difference.

A concrete example of defending China externally against US imperialism would be that recently an US aircraft carrier planned to engage in a joint exercise with South Korea on China's door step (it was later cancelled), this kind of military action by the US should be explicitly opposed. Of course I think North Korea is a deformed worker's state too, but less so than China today obviously.

[KC]

It seems to be rather egoistical of you to think that you are always right as a lone individual and yet the debates that large sections of the left engage in are all "silly".It's not egotistical it's common sense for anyone not in the left.



China is technically still a "deformed worker's state" because the superficial superstructure of a socialist state is still there.Except it's not. You can speak of the legal or juridical structure of China, as can the insane leftists that point to China's socialism, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality the situation is completely different. But I digress. My point was that you're being too categorical, and life isn't that simple. Abstractions are just that - abstractions. You cannot apply them directly to the real world like you have.


The fact that all of this is largely a sign of hypocrisy doesn't change the fact that the bourgeois restoration has not completed in China the way it had done so in the former USSR and in Eastern Europe.And it won't because the situation in China is completely different. In the USSR the state was a hindrance on capitalist development. In China it is a complement of it.


What is "imperialism"? Lenin gave a very precisely definition of it.Lol Lenin never gave a "precise" definition of it.



Chinese capitalism essentially only oppresses the people of China. American imperialism oppresses people all over the world, from America itself to Cuba and Iraq and Afghanistan and Africa. That is also a crucial difference.

A concrete example of defending China externally against US imperialism would be that recently an US aircraft carrier planned to engage in a joint exercise with South Korea on China's door step (it was later cancelled), this kind of military action by the US should be explicitly opposed. Of course I think North Korea is a deformed worker's state too, but less so than China today obviously.This isn't even how imperialism is defined as by the classical theory; this is how liberals use the word.

I was looking for you to answer my question, not direct me back to Lenin and give me some weak non-examples. Feel free to try again if you want.

EDIT: Also, I was asking about what that means to you and other American socialists in terms of concrete action. Yet you simply continued to say that you would "oppose it". Well, what does that mean?

[Raúl Duke]

A concrete example of defending China externally against US imperialism would be that recently an US aircraft carrier planned to engage in a joint exercise with South Korea on China's door step (it was later cancelled)

Most analyst say that was a show of force for North Korea, not China.


Chinese capitalism today has not yet reached this level

But it probably will reach it soon, and perhaps in our lifetimes. Perhaps it has yet no wars have been started over it...
yet


this kind of military action by the US should be explicitly opposed.

China isn't exactly a defenseless nation and the idea of US war versus China is crazy; I don't see why anyone should care about stopping "war games" relative to opposing and trying to stop current wars and occupations or even attempting to prevent more likelier wars.

Plus, if China felt threatened they already "one-upped" the US with the invention of an anti-aircraft carrier missile which would diminish US naval power in case of war.

The term "deformed worker's state" sounds like a meaningless and perhaps non-existent in reality abstraction

[Os Cangaceiros]

China's nuclear capacity is nothing compared with that of the US or Russia, and indeed is even smaller than that of France and the UK.

The point was that China is largely immune from U.S. military pressure because of the fact that it's a nuclear-armed nation. Although of course that's not the only way that influence is exercised...it's also influenced by economic/financial means, which by any measure indicates that China has the U.S. by the balls.


China's "rapid growth" in the last three decades is largely all in the "low-end processing" sectors, not high-tech or any other things that really matter.

Actually China has experienced rapid growth in "other things that really matter" over the last two decades, namely heavy industry in the form of petrol, iron and chemical production and research.


Despite all of China's "growth"

China's growth is not a matter of debate.


it is still largely a developing country, and its military power is nothing compared to that of Russia. Since Russia did not become a global imperialist power in its own right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is no way that China would become one either.

Russia didn't become a major imperialist power on par with the U.S. because it lost the war for global hegemony. That's not a statement on whether or not China (or any other nation) can take the place of the United States after it's power wains and declines, as will inevitably happen (and is happening right now).


China's ruling class mainly just oppresses its own people, not like the American ruling class which throws its weight around the entire world. (Iraq, Afghanistan, you name it) This is why America today is an imperialist power but China is not.

It's interesting that you name two places that are zones of military conflict, which is the most explicit form of exercised power. That's ignoring the fact that power exercises itself in a multitude of ways, however, many of them implicit...economic power (embodied in the G20, IMF, GATT etc.) is exerted far more often than military power is, and you can be sure that China is taking advantage of their own economic weight.

[Raúl Duke]

It's interesting that you name two places that are zones of military conflict, which is the most explicit form of exercised power. That's ignoring the fact that power exercises itself in a multitude of ways, however, many of them implicit...economic power (embodied in the G20, IMF, GATT etc.) is exerted far more often than military power is, and you can be sure that China is taking advantage of their own economic weight.

Interesting points you mention, Explosive Situation.

I mean if one was to use military expeditions as the sole or main measure of imperialism than it would only paint a picture where the US, UK, and Russia are mostly the sole imperialist nations. It would render Europe/1st world less imperialist.

But you are right, these economic institutions also play a role in imperialism plus other factors (outside of economic institutions, like economic relationships between countries).

I've heard that China in the past has lent money to Africa and has had business dealings in that continent. Although I don't know much details about it.


still largely a developing country

Perhaps, but not in the same realm as Latin-America, Africa, or South-East Asia.
China has a very extensive and productive economy. China has the potential of engaging in imperialism at least in some limited basis.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's not egotistical it's common sense for anyone not in the left.


Common sense is often wrong.



Except it's not. You can speak of the legal or juridical structure of China, as can the insane leftists that point to China's socialism, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality the situation is completely different. But I digress. My point was that you're being too categorical, and life isn't that simple. Abstractions are just that - abstractions. You cannot apply them directly to the real world like you have.

And it won't because the situation in China is completely different. In the USSR the state was a hindrance on capitalist development. In China it is a complement of it.
Is that why many people are calling for a "colour revolution" to happen in China now, like with the 08 charter calling for the CCP to formally step down?



Lol Lenin never gave a "precise" definition of it.
Ever read Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism?



This isn't even how imperialism is defined as by the classical theory; this is how liberals use the word.
It's how imperialism is defined by Maoism and Third Worldism.

Regardless of how you define it, it is an objective fact that American capitalism negatively affects more people around the world and over a much larger geographical area than Chinese capitalism does.

And how is quoting from the Marxist classics "weak" in any sense? You think it is a sign of "ideological strength" to always come up with your own hare-brained theories?



EDIT: Also, I was asking about what that means to you and other American socialists in terms of concrete action. Yet you simply continued to say that you would "oppose it". Well, what does that mean?
I'm not an American socialist, in fact, I am Chinese. Don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know.

And your tendency to mix political debate with personal insults is indeed pretty lame.

[Queercommie Girl]

Interesting points you mention, Explosive Situation.

I mean if one was to use military expeditions as the sole or main measure of imperialism than it would only paint a picture where the US, UK, and Russia are mostly the sole imperialist nations. It would render Europe/1st world less imperialist.

But you are right, these economic institutions also play a role in imperialism plus other factors (outside of economic institutions, like economic relationships between countries).

I've heard that China in the past has lent money to Africa and has had business dealings in that continent. Although I don't know much details about it.



Perhaps, but not in the same realm as Latin-America, Africa, or South-East Asia.
China has a very extensive and productive economy. China has the potential of engaging in imperialism at least in some limited basis.

Politics and Military are signs of "concentrated Economics". Of course not all instances of imperialism are directly militaristic or even political. But when imperialism reaches the stage of direct military action, it has become a much more potent form of imperialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually China has experienced rapid growth in "other things that really matter" over the last two decades, namely heavy industry in the form of petrol, iron and chemical production and research.

China's growth is not a matter of debate.


A lot of China's GDP growth is full of "water". It is an objective fact that in many ways sectors such as hi-tech research and basic infrastructure don't do as well in China now as it did in the Maoist era.

You don't follow news from China much do you? Recently the property developers forcefully demolished a research centre under the Chinese Academy of Sciences that was originally built by Prof. Qian Xueshen's team - the guy who led the projects of atomic weapons and space flight for China. That's a vivid example of how the speculative sector (e.g. property) is pushing out the real productive sector like basic industry and hi-tech.



It's interesting that you name two places that are zones of military conflict, which is the most explicit form of exercised power. That's ignoring the fact that power exercises itself in a multitude of ways, however, many of them implicit...economic power (embodied in the G20, IMF, GATT etc.) is exerted far more often than military power is, and you can be sure that China is taking advantage of their own economic weight.

I'm not ignoring it. Politics and military are but concentrated expressions of economics. But when imperialism becomes directly militaristic, it has become a more potent form of imperialism, compared with imperialism that is solely economic.

G20 is an example of economic imperialism, but who leads the G20, IMF etc. You can be sure it's not China, and it won't be for a long time, even assuming the current political patterns for China will hold over the next 50 years, which it mostly likely won't.

[Queercommie Girl]

The term "deformed worker's state" sounds like a meaningless and perhaps non-existent in reality abstraction.


"Deformed worker's state" is a very important concept in orthodox Trotskyism. The general idea is that these states still to some extent have a socialist economic basis, but the political superstructure has deformed or degenerated, usually due to bureaucratism and the lack of worker's democracy.

The Soviet Union that was originally formed by the October Revolution was a genuine worker's state, but by the time Stalin got into power, the political superstructure was already degenerated and deformed. If the deformation in the political superstructure persists, then it will eventually lead to the restoration of bureaucratic capitalism and the complete collapse of the worker's state, which is what occurred in the former Soviet Union.

What deformed worker's states require is an "internal revolution" of workers against the deformation in the bureaucracy, but essentially still keeping the structures of the state intact. This contrasts with the kind of revolution that should happen in capitalist states, which would usually involve smashing the state apparatus. It is sometimes described that a worker's revolution in a deformed worker's state is only a "political revolution" but not a "social revolution". Externally it is argued that socialists should still defend deformed worker's states as a whole against the incursions of imperialism.

Frankly, the concept of "deformed worker's states" makes far more sense than "state-capitalism".

[KC]

Is that why many people are calling for a "colour revolution" to happen in China now, like with the 08 charter calling for the CCP to formally step down?And?


Ever read Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism?Yes, of course I have. There is no precise definition or theory of Imperialism laid out in that work. In fact, he openly admits it in the title of the work itself (Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism. A Popular Outline).

In fact, there are many discrepancies within this work, which is based on the works of Bukharin and Hilferding (who did most of the theoretical work and who your type completely ignore or haven't even heard of, instead directing everyone to Lenin's tiny pamphlet), whose work themselves have discrepancies.

Moreover, a lot of what is written in that book isn't applicable today. There is a reason that modern dependency theorists take the complete opposite view than what Lenin asserted in Imperialism.


Regardless of how you define it, it is an objective fact that American capitalism negatively affects more people around the world and over a much larger geographical area than Chinese capitalism does.This is an incredibly silly and sophomoric argument. American capital is "worse" than Chinese capital?

Capital is capital, no matter what country controls it. Imperialism has nothing to do with the capital of this or that country; imperialism is a development of the capitalist system as a whole.


And how is quoting from the Marxist classics "weak" in any sense? Because the "Marxist classic" that you have completely uncritically accepted as truth is no longer valid. It was written 95 years ago and became invalid around 70 years ago, and I'm being generous.


You think it is a sign of "ideological strength" to always come up with your own hare-brained theories?I think it is a sign of ""ideological strength"" to critically examine such works and to not uncritically accept them as gospel, as you very obviously have.


I'm not an American socialist, in fact, I am Chinese. Don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know.So you live in China? Or you're just Chinese? What about the UK, don't you live there? If so, then my question still stands. Hell, even if you live in China it still stands.

[Raúl Duke]

The general idea is that these states still to some extent have a socialist economic basisI have a very rigid conception of what a socialist economic base is: direct worker's control of means of production. I don't see this, I don't consider it socialist. Everything else is besides the point and/or mental gymnastics.

Call it whatever, but China is not socialist until the Chinese working class control the workplaces.

[gorillafuck]

This capitalist minister is totally right, the real problems in China are because of racy TV shows. Nothing to do with rampant capitalism.

[NGNM85]

This capitalist minister is totally right, the real problems in China are because of racy TV shows. Nothing to do with rampant capitalism.


.......That, AND the rampant human rights violations.

[RadioRaheem84]

.......That, AND the rampant human rights violations.

Oh, go away!

[NGNM85]

Oh, go away!

You're such a child.

[Queercommie Girl]

And?


You said the Chinese state today is favourable to the free development of capital, therefore it is not a deformed worker's state, but a capitalist state.

If the Chinese state is a capitalist state, why are the Chinese capitalists still calling for the CCP to step down? Obviously the existence of the CCP, no matter how deformed or hypocritical, is still an obstacle as far as the die-hard capitalist right-wing is concerned.



Yes, of course I have. There is no precise definition or theory of Imperialism laid out in that work. In fact, he openly admits it in the title of the work itself (Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism. A Popular Outline).


Yes, it is "a popular outline", so what? Socialism should be intrinsically "popular", it is for the masses, not for a few "holier-than-thou" ivory tower academics to ponder over. That's why the Maoist philosopher Ai Siqi wrote a book called "Philosophy for the Masses", philosophy must be popularised, so that it becomes something that even a peasant in India can understand, otherwise it may become reactionary.

Lenin did have a definition of imperialism in the general sense, even if it's not "mathematically precise":

And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves;
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.



In fact, there are many discrepancies within this work, which is based on the works of Bukharin and Hilferding (who did most of the theoretical work and who your type completely ignore or haven't even heard of, instead directing everyone to Lenin's tiny pamphlet), whose work themselves have discrepancies.


Off topic, the purpose of this thread is not discuss the historical origins of Leninist thought. And spare me your elitest grumblings about "my type".



Moreover, a lot of what is written in that book isn't applicable today. There is a reason that modern dependency theorists take the complete opposite view than what Lenin asserted in Imperialism.


A lot of things may have changed, but the essence of capitalism and imperialism is still the same as it was 100 years ago. Therefore in the basic sense the Leninist theory of imperialism still applies today. This is the general view among all left-wing economists and political theorists in China today.



This is an incredibly silly and sophomoric argument. American capital is "worse" than Chinese capital?

Capital is capital, no matter what country controls it. Imperialism has nothing to do with the capital of this or that country; imperialism is a development of the capitalist system as a whole.


Your idea here is extremely simplistic. "Capitalism", in case you haven't noticed, is not "a single slab of concrete". This is true in many ways. Firstly, the capitalist class consists of various layers, some of which are more reactionary than others. For example, bureaucratic capitalism is more reactionary than ethnic/national capitalism of oppressed nations. Secondly, unless you agree with the ridiculously inane ideas of Negri that global capitalism is now fusing into a singular pole, capitalism around the world is certainly not in union and is sharply divided along the political lines of the nation-state. American capitalism serves the American nation-state, Chinese capitalism serves the Chinese nation-state, and so forth. So they are not all the same. Thirdly, if you like to emphasise on how Marxism has developed over the course of the 20th century, then how can you ignore the theoretical contributions of Third Worldism? According to the analysis of Third Worldism, a national capitalism that is actively seeking to economically, and in some cases militarily, colonise the rest of the globe is relatively speaking more reactionary than a less powerful form of national capitalism, of a nation that just recently emerged from its own semi-colonial past, that largely just oppresses its own people and perhaps a few border peoples. That is the difference between Chinese capitalism and American capitalism. The latter is more reactionary. Therefore yes, I insist on this point: American capitalism is objectively worse than Chinese capitalism.



Because the "Marxist classic" that you have completely uncritically accepted as truth is no longer valid. It was written 95 years ago and became invalid around 70 years ago, and I'm being generous.

I think it is a sign of ""ideological strength"" to critically examine such works and to not uncritically accept them as gospel, as you very obviously have.


I disagree. I have examined these issues critically, and my conclusion is that while some details may have changed, and the levels of centralisation in today's capitalism has exceeded that of Lenin's day, the basic Leninist analysis of imperialism still stands. Furthermore, the basic Maoist analysis of imperialism, which clearly shows that "first world capitalism" is worse objectively than "third world capitalism" in terms of its overall reactionary nature, also still holds in the basic sense.



So you live in China? Or you're just Chinese? What about the UK, don't you live there? If so, then my question still stands. Hell, even if you live in China it still stands.

I live in the UK, but where I live is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Obviously as an individual I can't exactly stop the march of US imperialism around the world. But the least I can do is to have a clear and politically correct position on contemporary issues, even if objectively I can't do much with it.

I think you are beginning to go off-topic. Our debate started over the exact nature of the Chinese state today. I think it is still a "deformed worker's state", albeit a highly deformed one, but you disagree. Just for reference, here is an orthodox Trotskyist explanation for why China today must still be a worker's state, from the CWI. I don't completely agree with Trotskyism in terms of their analysis of China and Maoism, but this particular theoretical justification of the "deformed worker's state" idea is still largely correct:

Trotsky’s theory of the state

THERE ARE MANY good reasons to still understand China as a deformed workers state, albeit one that is uniquely and extensively deformed. China has not yet gone through the transition to capitalism. We have to remember and build on Trotsky’s points in his article, The Class Nature of the Soviet State (1933): "Against the assertion that the workers’ state is apparently already liquidated there arises, first and foremost, the important methodological position of Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat was established by means of a political overturn and a civil war of three years. The class theory of society and historical experience equally testify to the impossibility of the victory of the proletariat through peaceful methods, that is without grandiose class battles, weapons in hand. How, in that case, is the imperceptible, ‘gradual’, bourgeois counter-revolution conceivable? Until now, in any case, feudal as well as bourgeois counter-revolutions have never taken place ‘organically’, but they have inevitably required the intervention of military surgery.

"In the last analysis, the theories of reformism, insofar as reformism has attained to theory, are always based on an inability to understand that class antagonisms are profound and irreconcilable; hence, the perspective of peaceful transformation of capitalism into socialism. The Marxist thesis relating to the catastrophic transfer of power from the hands of one class into the hands of another applies not only to revolutionary periods, when history sweeps madly ahead, but also to periods of counter-revolution, when society rolls backwards. He who asserts that the soviet government has been gradually changed from proletarian to bourgeois is only, so to speak, running backwards the film of reformism".

This is not to rely on dusty quotes from the archives against the reality facing us; it is to seek to understand reality using Marxist theory consistent with its history and development. Our analysis of China has to base itself on our previous descriptions.

To suddenly perceive a gradual transition from one form of society to another in China would be to throw out previous positions without acknowledging or analysing where or why these theories were in error. It is not really a serious way to proceed in any science.

Those who wish to describe China as capitalist today all use the same method. They start from the current picture, using numerous figures and estimates from bourgeois academic sources to show that China, now, this year, is capitalist. They then work backwards to try and identify a point of transition. Was it Tiananmen Square in 1989, or Deng’s speech at the XIV Party Congress in 1992, the incorporation of Hong Kong in 1997, or China’s accession to WTO in 2001, or even the passing of laws explicitly protecting private property in 2004? They prioritise present day impressions over historical analysis and understanding.

[Kiev Communard]

If the Chinese state is a capitalist state, why are the Chinese capitalists still calling for the CCP to step down? Obviously the existence of the CCP, no matter how deformed or hypocritical, is still an obstacle as far as the die-hard capitalist right-wing is concerned.

The Chinese capitalists need a "strong state" to protect them both from the workers' militancy and foreign competition, and if the party calling itself "Communist" fulfils this role well, why should they bother? Historically the bourgeoisie was always quick to accept the bureaucratic domination of the state power not directly controlled by them (for instance, the Second French Empire or Hitler's Third Reich) as long as the aforementioned state ensured the inviolability of their private property, crushed popular movements and assisted their "national" capitalists in conquering foreign markets and/or colonies.

As to those who call for the CCP to step down, they are mostly representatives of neoliberal academia who feel contempt for the popular classes and are indignant about "totalitarianism" but have no problems about sweatshop economy or environmental degradation, as long as "sacred private property" is preserved. Of course, the Chinese bourgeoisie would be glad to use those dupes with the aim of ideological undergirding of their possible quest for direct power over the State in the probable future, as their "Soviet" colleagues did in early 1990s, but for now they seem to be content enjoying the "Communist" bureaucrats protection from "unpatriotic" strikers and competing capitalists from the other nations.

[KC]

You said the Chinese state today is favourable to the free development of capital, therefore it is not a deformed worker's state, but a capitalist state.

If the Chinese state is a capitalist state, why are the Chinese capitalists still calling for the CCP to step down? Obviously the existence of the CCP, no matter how deformed or hypocritical, is still an obstacle as far as the die-hard capitalist right-wing is concerned.

The Chinese capitalists are Communist Party members. Have you ever heard of Red Capitalists (http://www.google.com/search?q=red+capitalists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)? This phenomenon is very well known. The reason I am not getting into this with you is because it is a very obvious fact to anyone that has performed even a cursory examination of the development of Capitalism in China over the past couple of decades. I'm just too lazy to put the work in to point something out to you that is so obvious.

If you want, go check out Wealth Into Power: the Communist Party's Embrace of China's Private Sector by Bruce Dickson. Or Red Capitalists in China: The Party, Private Entrepreneurs, and Prospects for Political Change by the same author.

Here's a quote from a paper that I wrote when I was doing my econ major that sucks because I didn't give a shit but explains it well:


Throughout the next two decades China would see a large amount of reforms aimed at dismantling the socialist planned economy and promoting private investment. It must be noted here, though, that this reintroduction of capitalism took on a vastly different character than it did in the Soviet Union when capitalism was restored there. In the Soviet Union state enterprises were actually sold off, which led to a very hasty restoration of capitalism. In China something much different happened; State Owned Enterprises (SOE's) were actually in most cases maintained, albeit with some very profound restructuring, while the private economy was permitted to grow independent of them.

This meant that, while SOE's were still state owned, their share of the economy dwindled as private investment soared. The implications of this permeated every layer of Chinese society; most notably, this mix of private capitalism and state socialism can be seen in the Chinese Communist Party itself. The party is now filled with what are known as “Red Capitalists” - communist party members who themselves are private owners of business or private investors.

This intermingling of the party and state with private investment is at first glance astounding. To most, who saw the party and the state in direct opposition to private enterprise and capitalism, this didn't make sense. Those who believed this saw a struggle between the party/state and private investment, so this merging of the two went against everything that they thought would happen.

The reality today, though, is that the state/party is in direct support of and serves the direct and indirect interests of private investment, both domestic and foreign. The party, though it still calls itself a Communist Party, is actually interested in maintaining the economic growth that it has seen since the reforms. Its interests are no longer with the workers/peasants but with private capital investment, and it will do all in its power to further those interests.

Looking at the numbers it is quite obvious that they have had enormous success in furthering those interests. In terms of GDP China is known for its steady growth of Real GDP of around 10% since 2000. Since the turn of the century China has also seen an enormous growth in Foreign Direct Investment. The economy has grown to such an extent that the State Owned Enterprises make up a dwindling percentage of the whole, and that number continues to shrink.

What will the future hold for China? Will there be a complete restoration of capitalism, as there was in the Soviet Union? It is unlikely. The current state/party apparatus is working wonders for private investment in China and, as long as discontent doesn't gain too much momentum, it will continue to do so. The future will see a tightening of relations between state and capital, and so this apparent contradiction will become even more astounding – the Chinese Communist Party will become increasingly a party of capital. Its policies will increasingly benefit both foreign and domestic investment. China will continue to be an aberration.

However, all of this is contingent on US-China relations. The current status-quo is not sustainable. There are already rumblings of conflict between the two which could have profound consequences. The system in place between these two countries conditions the entire global economy, and so the future of China hinges on the outcome of these relations. The coming months (or perhaps years) will shed light on this question, and will provide with definite certainty the course that China will take.

Bibliography

Bhaumik, T.K. Old China's New Economy: The Conquest By A Billion Paupers. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2009.

Wang, Hui. The Gradual Revolution. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1994.

Woetzel, Jonathan. China’s Economic Opening to the Outside World. New York, NY: Praeger, 1989.

Fishman, Ted. China, Inc. New York, NY: Scribner, 2005.

Hart-Landsberg, Martin, and Paul Burkett. China and Socialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 2005.


Now I don't really care to get into this any further than I have in this post, because to believe that China is going to go through some kind of Soviet-style restoration is simply delusional beyond words. Feel free to respond, but I might not respond to you.


Yes, it is "a popular outline", so what?So he didn't develop a theory of imperialism. That's what. That's sort of a big deal.



Lenin did have a definition of imperialism in the general sense, even if it's not "mathematically precise":

And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves;
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
This is not a theory of imperialism. This is a very general/broad outline. Moreover, it's riddled with holes and inconsistencies.


Off topic, the purpose of this thread is not discuss the historical origins of Leninist thought. And spare me your elitest grumblings about "my type".This thread is about whatever we choose it to be about. If you can't respond to my points then don't hide behind some desire to "stay on topic". It's quite obvious that you can't respond, otherwise you wouldn't have started responding, as quoted above. Finally, this thread is about imperialism, as we are discussing what it means to "defend China from imperialism". Well, in order to discuss that we must first discuss what imperialism actually is.


A lot of things may have changed, but the essence of capitalism and imperialism is still the same as it was 100 years ago.First, no they're not. As I said, there is something strange about how dependency theorists have taken the opposite view of the classical theorists (Bukharin, Lenin, Luxemburg, Hilferding) on imperialism. To say "a lot of things have still changed but the essence of imperialism is the same" is silly because it is regarding this "essence" that dependency theorists take a completely opposite view.

You're trying to brush away very obvious and fundamental differences on what the essence of imperialism is just so that you can retain your own uneducated and dogmatic world view that Lenin (and perhaps even dependency theorists as well) are right.

You can appeal to authority all you want but it doesn't make the fact that you (or they) are hypocrites any less true.


Your idea here is extremely simplistic. "Capitalism", in case you haven't noticed, is not "a single slab of concrete". This is true in many ways. Firstly, the capitalist class consists of various layers, some of which are more reactionary than others. For example, bureaucratic capitalism is more reactionary than ethnic/national capitalism of oppressed nations. Secondly, unless you agree with the ridiculously inane ideas of Negri that global capitalism is now fusing into a singular pole, capitalism around the world is certainly not in union and is sharply divided along the political lines of the nation-state. American capitalism serves the American nation-state, Chinese capitalism serves the Chinese nation-state, and so forth. So they are not all the same. Thirdly, if you like to emphasise on how Marxism has developed over the course of the 20th century, then how can you ignore the theoretical contributions of Third Worldism? According to the analysis of Third Worldism, a national capitalism that is actively seeking to economically, and in some cases militarily, colonise the rest of the globe is relatively speaking more reactionary than a less powerful form of national capitalism, of a nation that just recently emerged from its own semi-colonial past, that largely just oppresses its own people and perhaps a few border peoples. That is the difference between Chinese capitalism and American capitalism. The latter is more reactionary. Therefore yes, I insist on this point: American capitalism is objectively worse than Chinese capitalism.You missed my point entirely, which was that capital accumulation is what leads to becoming an "imperialist" according to most existing theories, and so to say that "American capitalism" is particularly worse than any other country is reducing Marxism to complete emotional wankery.

In fact, your entire argument is based on what is "reactionary" and what is not. You haven't even made a point in this quote for me to respond to.


I disagree. I have examined these issues critically, and my conclusion is that while some details may have changed, and the levels of centralisation in today's capitalism has exceeded that of Lenin's day, the basic Leninist analysis of imperialism still stands.Yet you also agree with the dependency theorists, which makes you a hypocrite.



I think you are beginning to go off-topic. Our debate started over the exact nature of the Chinese state today. I think it is still a "deformed worker's state", albeit a highly deformed one, but you disagree. Just for reference, here is an orthodox Trotskyist explanation for why China today must still be a worker's state, from the CWI. I don't completely agree with Trotskyism in terms of their analysis of China and Maoism, but this particular theoretical justification of the "deformed worker's state" idea is still largely correct:Read some of Vincent Kolo's articles on the subject, who is a CWI member. This one (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2970), for example.

I'm probably not going to respond to you in the future, fyi. First, you're really weird. Second, you can't make any more "points" than the most general unsupported statements. You clearly have not studied imperialism theory as you say you have or you would realize the hypocrisy of your position.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Chinese capitalists are Communist Party members. Have you ever heard of Red Capitalists (http://www.google.com/search?q=red+capitalists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)? This phenomenon is very well known. The reason I am not getting into this with you is because it is a very obvious fact to anyone that has performed even a cursory examination of the development of Capitalism in China over the past couple of decades. I'm just too lazy to put the work in to point something out to you that is so obvious.

If you want, go check out Wealth Into Power: the Communist Party's Embrace of China's Private Sector by Bruce Dickson. Or Red Capitalists in China: The Party, Private Entrepreneurs, and Prospects for Political Change by the same author.

Here's a quote from a paper that I wrote when I was doing my econ major that sucks because I didn't give a shit but explains it well:

Now I don't really care to get into this any further than I have in this post, because to believe that China is going to go through some kind of Soviet-style restoration is simply delusional beyond words. Feel free to respond, but I might not respond to you.


I'm aware that many capitalists in China today are bureaucratic capitalists inside the CCP. In fact, if you care to read some of the threads here I've made such a point myself. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant section of Chinese capitalists today who are calling for the CCP to step down or at least to give up significant political power. Obviously the Chinese state is still seen as an obstacle to the "full flowering" of capitalism in China in some way. This is similar in many ways to what happened in the last days of the former USSR.

You may think that thinking China today is on the path to a complete capitalist restoration is "delusional", but it is a "delusion" that is shared by wide layers of Trots and Maoists alike.



So he didn't develop a theory of imperialism. That's what. That's sort of a big deal.

This is not a theory of imperialism. This is a very general/broad outline. Moreover, it's riddled with holes and inconsistencies.

This thread is about whatever we choose it to be about. If you can't respond to my points then don't hide behind some desire to "stay on topic". It's quite obvious that you can't respond, otherwise you wouldn't have started responding, as quoted above. Finally, this thread is about imperialism, as we are discussing what it means to "defend China from imperialism". Well, in order to discuss that we must first discuss what imperialism actually is.
Why is it such a big deal? Are we playing word games here or something? Does it really matter, as far as the content of the theory of imperialism is concerned, who developed it first in the strict sense? I don't think so. That's why I said it's off-topic.

And I just quoted a general outline of the explanation of imperialism from Lenin's book. Obviously I'm not going to go into a full-length analysis of it here in this thread.



First, no they're not. As I said, there is something strange about how dependency theorists have taken the opposite view of the classical theorists (Bukharin, Lenin, Luxemburg, Hilferding) on imperialism. To say "a lot of things have still changed but the essence of imperialism is the same" is silly because it is regarding this "essence" that dependency theorists take a completely opposite view.

You're trying to brush away very obvious and fundamental differences on what the essence of imperialism is just so that you can retain your own uneducated and dogmatic world view that Lenin (and perhaps even dependency theorists as well) are right.

You can appeal to authority all you want but it doesn't make the fact that you (or they) are hypocrites any less true.
And who says the "dependency theories" are right? As far as I know most leftist theorists in China today still go by Lenin's idea. You can't just assume that other people share the same kind of theoretical assumptions as you do.



You missed my point entirely, which was that capital accumulation is what leads to becoming an "imperialist" according to most existing theories, and so to say that "American capitalism" is particularly worse than any other country is reducing Marxism to complete emotional wankery.

In fact, your entire argument is based on what is "reactionary" and what is not. You haven't even made a point in this quote for me to respond to.
No I did not miss your point. Your analysis of capitalism here is simplistic and purely economist, which is a mistake. That's what I was countering. Capitalism is much more complicated in reality. There are also political factors involved such as imperialism, nationalism and colonialism etc. It is not something that can be explained on a purely economist basis. Economics cannot exist independently from political considerations. It is also a basic premise of Third Worldism that generally First World capitalism is more reactionary than Third World capitalism. Unless you completely reject Third Worldism, you cannot ignore this point. Even in terms of capital accumulation it is clear that objectively First World capitalism exists at a far higher stage of accumulation than most Third World capitalisms do. That is the economic basis of First World imperialism.

And spare me the childish adolescent bullshit insults like "wankery". There is nothing wrong with "emotions" per se, and analysing the situation based on concrete political considerations and not just economist ones is clearly not excessively "emotional".



Yet you also agree with the dependency theorists, which makes you a hypocrite.
I never said I agree with the dependency theorists, don't put words into my mouth.



Read some of Vincent Kolo's articles on the subject, who is a CWI member. This one (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2970), for example.
I actually know Vincent Kolo personally. I've worked with him before. Within the CWI there is still an active debate going on regarding the status of the Chinese state. The majority opinion is that China is still a deformed worker's state, which is also the opinion of the CWI's Exceutive core. So obviously I don't mind debating this matter with people who disagree with the deformed worker's state theory, that is, if the debate is carried out in a mature and civil manner, which frankly you are not capable of doing so well.



I'm probably not going to respond to you in the future, fyi. First, you're really weird. Second, you can't make any more "points" than the most general unsupported statements. You clearly have not studied imperialism theory as you say you have or you would realize the hypocrisy of your position.
Well I've made my points and my position clear, so I don't really care whether you respond to me or not, so you don't have the duty to tell me that so explicitly. But to attack someone's political position simply based on the perception that "he/she is 'weird'" is a clear example of ad hominem - you are not arguing against my position based on its own merits and shortcomings, you are arguing against my position by making some inane comments about myself. And you don't even say why is it you find me "weird". That is an extremely immature and idiotic response. Whether or not I am "weird" personally should not have anything to do with the actual content of this debate.

[AK]

What use is anti-consumerism to a dirt-poor proletariat?