China, A poll.

[Ned Kelly]

In line with the poll on the DPRK, I thought I'd conduct one on China, and the opinion of people in relation to it. I personally now see it as hurtling towards neo - liberal capitalism, if not already there, with economic power concentrated in the hands of a tiny majority with cheap labour everywhere. Not good.

[AK]

It would help to actually add a poll...

[bailey_187]

its not 'neo-liberal', and i doubt it will become so now.


i have heard it called "neo-mercantalist", how accurate that is i dont know.

[Obs]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who'll call the PRC socialist. And if you do find someone, call him a dumbass.

[pierrotlefou]

I don't think they have the love of corporations that we do. Neo-liberal seems like an inaccurate term mostly because of how much we relate that term to the US which is similar but different enough from china to warrant a different label. The potential for an actual socialist movement seems also more possible in a country like China than the US so..I don't want to say it's...better...per say, but it's different.

[RedStarOverChina]

China is different from the other corrupt dictorships that you see elsewhere because the remenants of past progressive revolutions is mashed together with an utterly corrupt (but functional) bureaucracy. Often you'd see policies that are really progressive on paper, but when implemented by the reactionary officials and bureaucrats, it turns out to be the same old crap.

The rule of the Shanghai Clique which began in 1990 and ended a couple years ago saw the introduction of many neo-liberal policies, but the ruling class has not promoted full liberalization of the economy. In fact, in the past several years, the process of economic liberalization has rolled back somewhat. I am more inclined to agree that it's more of a "neo-mercantalist" economy, but a simple phrase like that does not encompass the entirety of China.

[durhamleft]

Nice poll comrade, next time try clicking the 'poll' button.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I could say a lot on this subject, but this is easier:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/growing-discontent-revisionist-t139949/index.html?t=139949

[Proletarian Ultra]

The PRC is an oppressive anti-worker state but:


It has fended off neoliberal asset-stripping.
It provides a counterweight to IMF hegemony in the developing world.
The so-called "Chinese Democracy Movement" are a bunch of neolib vampire scum. Their sinophobic sponsors in the West are even worse.
Despite their fondest wishes, the CCP leadership has been unable to openly disavow socialism because of popular resistance. This is important.
A significant minority of the party membership are still committed to socialism.

So the answer to "do you support the PRC" depends on context. Against striking factory workers? Fuck no. Against John Bolton, the Weekly Standard or fucking Bono (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-vs-aid-african-investment-smackdown-2010-1)? Absolutely.

[Soviet dude]

I support the CCP. I think it is definitely a Rightist communist party, though I think it is debatable how revisionist it is.

China has less foreign investment per capita than Cuba. Much of the economy is still state owned, most importantly, all the telecommunications, banking, etc; the most profitable areas the capitalist class would want to exploit. China is still very friendly to labor, and more strikes happen in China than anywhere else today (which is a good thing), usually with support of the government. China routinely executes the richest members of their society.

If you take the CCP's line seriously, it is easy to understand why they took the route they did. Socialism requires a certain level of development before it can be obtained. If a peasant revolution happened in 13th century Europe, and they threw out all the feudal lords and the Church, it wouldn't be socialism. It would be progressive, egalitarian, and a heroic example of class struggle, and something any communist would be inspired by, but it wouldn't create socialism as understood by Marx and Engels.

So China let the capitalists in because Russia wasn't going to help them industrialize because of the Sino-Soviet split.

There most definitely is a real danger to this, and I think China has gone quite far down the wrong road, but that doesn't mean the CCP is incapable or unwilling to go back to the right path. There are 75 million members of the CCP, and I would wager the vast majority of these people want to see their country move away from capitalism.

Any hope for China to move to the Left is going to come from the lower-rungs of the CCP, and nowhere else. Calling for anything else is essentially calling for the destruction of China as a nation, like Yugoslavia.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I support the CCP. I think it is definitely a Rightist communist party, though I think it is debatable how revisionist it is.

China has less foreign investment per capita than Cuba. Much of the economy is still state owned, most importantly, all the telecommunications, banking, etc; the most profitable areas the capitalist class would want to exploit. China is still very friendly to labor, and more strikes happen in China than anywhere else today (which is a good thing), usually with support of the government. China routinely executes the richest members of their society.

If you take the CCP's line seriously, it is easy to understand why they took the route they did. Socialism requires a certain level of development before it can be obtained. If a peasant revolution happened in 13th century Europe, and they threw out all the feudal lords and the Church, it wouldn't be socialism. It would be progressive, egalitarian, and a heroic example of class struggle, and something any communist would be inspired by, but it wouldn't create socialism as understood by Marx and Engels.

So China let the capitalists in because Russia wasn't going to help them industrialize because of the Sino-Soviet split.

There most definitely is a real danger to this, and I think China has gone quite far down the wrong road, but that doesn't mean the CCP is incapable or unwilling to go back to the right path. There are 75 million members of the CCP, and I would wager the vast majority of these people want to see their country move away from capitalism.

Any hope for China to move to the Left is going to come from the lower-rungs of the CCP, and nowhere else. Calling for anything else is essentially calling for the destruction of China as a nation, like Yugoslavia.

I can agree with a good amount of this, but there are things that I would say is essentially untrue. They didn't "let the capitalists in". They even waged a campaign to try & dismantle any "capitalist roader" present within the Chinese government.

Having said that, I do believe there are those within the CPC that do essentially disagree with the road they're on towards Capitalism. In 2007, 17 members of the CPC gave out a letter to them demanding for the Dengist reforms to stop & to embrace what they called "Mao Zedong Thought" once again: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/china070807.html

[Obs]

I support the CCP. I think it is definitely a Rightist communist party, though I think it is debatable how revisionist it is.

China has less foreign investment per capita than Cuba. Much of the economy is still state owned, most importantly, all the telecommunications, banking, etc; the most profitable areas the capitalist class would want to exploit. China is still very friendly to labor, and more strikes happen in China than anywhere else today (which is a good thing), usually with support of the government. China routinely executes the richest members of their society.

If you take the CCP's line seriously, it is easy to understand why they took the route they did. Socialism requires a certain level of development before it can be obtained. If a peasant revolution happened in 13th century Europe, and they threw out all the feudal lords and the Church, it wouldn't be socialism. It would be progressive, egalitarian, and a heroic example of class struggle, and something any communist would be inspired by, but it wouldn't create socialism as understood by Marx and Engels.

So China let the capitalists in because Russia wasn't going to help them industrialize because of the Sino-Soviet split.

There most definitely is a real danger to this, and I think China has gone quite far down the wrong road, but that doesn't mean the CCP is incapable or unwilling to go back to the right path. There are 75 million members of the CCP, and I would wager the vast majority of these people want to see their country move away from capitalism.

Any hope for China to move to the Left is going to come from the lower-rungs of the CCP, and nowhere else. Calling for anything else is essentially calling for the destruction of China as a nation, like Yugoslavia.
Interesting analysis... essentially, this would make China a capitalist state with a Communist ruling party, wouldn't it?

[M-26-7]

Interesting analysis... essentially, this would make China a capitalist state with a Communist ruling party, wouldn't it?

This makes me wonder about the possible parallels between present-day China and NEP Russia. Honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough about the present-day Chinese economy (or state) to make the comparison in any depth.

[Soviet dude]

Interesting analysis... essentially, this would make China a capitalist state with a Communist ruling party, wouldn't it?

All socialist governments have had and will always have, at some point, a communist party ruling over a capitalist economy. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, where the institutional forms of bourgeois rule are smashed and replaced by socialist institutions, is only the first step in the phase of building socialism. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and socialism are not the same thing. Socialism didn't exist in October of 1917 in Russia, but the capitalists were no longer calling the shots.

[Soviet dude]

I can agree with a good amount of this, but there are things that I would say is essentially untrue. They didn't "let the capitalists in". They even waged a campaign to try & dismantle any "capitalist roader" present within the Chinese government.

And the truth is, whether we want to accept it or not, Mao himself let most of these people back in, and these people had a huge amount of support in the party. The Rightist turn within the party was largely a matter that was accepted internally and by the people. Do they go too far? Sure, but it's not so simple to blame it all on Deng, as if Hua Guofeng or the Gang of Four were the obvious alternatives.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And the truth is, whether we want to accept it or not, Mao himself let most of these people back in, and these people had a huge amount of support in the party. The Rightist turn within the party was largely a matter that was accepted internally and by the people. Do they go too far? Sure, but it's not so simple to blame it all on Deng, as if Hua Guofeng or the Gang of Four were the obvious alternatives.

Where do you have any historical facts to Mao "letting" Deng back into power?

[AK]

I support the CCP. I think it is definitely a Rightist communist party, though I think it is debatable how revisionist it is.
Maybe I'm not in touch with Maoist slang, but why would you support a supposedly right-wing party?

[Nolan]

I support the CCP. I think it is definitely a Rightist communist party, though I think it is debatable how revisionist it is.



Can I have a sip of that kool-aid?

[Soviet dude]

Maybe I'm not in touch with Maoist slang, but why would you support a supposedly right-wing party?

Rightist doesn't mean right-wing. The CPUSA is an example, in the American context, of a radical Left group that has an extreme Rightist deviation. Speaking of Right and Left deviations in the context of communist politics isn't just a Maoist thing. Lenin, for example, wrote the book on Leftist deviation.

[robbo203]

Interesting analysis... essentially, this would make China a capitalist state with a Communist ruling party, wouldn't it?

Or a capitalist state with a fake communist ruling party...

[Queercommie Girl]

This makes me wonder about the possible parallels between present-day China and NEP Russia. Honestly, I am not knowledgeable enough about the present-day Chinese economy (or state) to make the comparison in any depth.

Today's China, in terms of the level of privatisation and the sheer quantity of economic disparity, far far outstrips anything even remotely resembling the Leninist NEP.

There is simply no comparison, none at all.

[Ned Kelly]

Sorry about the lack of an actual poll comrades..
Internet went haywire at the time I was adding the poll. :(

There is no way at all that the NEP can be compared with modern day China. The NEP wasn't huge scale and simply had the intention of modernizing the economy for future benefit in terms of building a socialist society.

China since Deng however..has been capitalism for the sake of capitalism!