What is Marcyism?

[Imposter Marxist]

I'm not really looking for opinons on it, just WHAT generally makes one a Marcyist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't "Global Class War" merely a post-Trotskyist fusion of Maoism - Third Worldism with "tankie-ism"?

[Palingenisis]

Isn't "Global Class War" merely a post-Trotskyist fusion of Maoism - Third Worldism with "tankie-ism"?

I see revolution coming first from the "third world", but Im not a "Third Worldist"....They Tankies minus reformism.

[graymouser]

Sam Marcy's theory of global class war, basically. It posited that there was a capitalist camp (the US and Western Europe, plus their allies) and a socialist camp (the USSR, Eastern Europe, DPRK, China, and later Cuba and Vietnam, allied with the national liberation struggles in the third world), and that the conflict between these was decisive. Marcy saw the Sino-Soviet split as a tremendous mistake. Since most of the socialist camp countries had their various counter-revolutions, Marcyism has focused on the anti-imperialist countries, which for instance meant that they didn't back the Green movement in Iran last year, and took quite a bit of criticism for it.

I've been finding Marcyism more interesting lately, because they seem to bridge a number of conflicts - they came out of the Trotskyist movement but were definitely quite strongly inspired by Mao and Castro. Also because of their position in the US, the Marcyites have actually been very strong on questions of special oppression. A good chunk of the Workers World Party leadership are black, and the PSL has a respectable following among [email protected]

[Queercommie Girl]

I've been finding Marcyism more interesting lately, because they seem to bridge a number of conflicts - they came out of the Trotskyist movement but were definitely quite strongly inspired by Mao and Castro. Also because of their position in the US, the Marcyites have actually been very strong on questions of special oppression. A good chunk of the Workers World Party leadership are black, and the PSL has a respectable following among [email protected]

I hear the Marcyists also have a progressive position on LGBT issues.

[graymouser]

I hear the Marcyists also have a progressive position on LGBT issues.
It's been a serious part of their overall politics, yeah. Workers World has had a years-long series in their paper called "Lavender & Red" that has done some serious research into LGBT history and its various connections, particularly its place in the various socialist and communist movements throughout history. I don't think PSL is different in terms of line on this but WWP has made it a more noticeable part of their work.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's been a serious part of their overall politics, yeah. Workers World has had a years-long series in their paper called "Lavender & Red" that has done some serious research into LGBT history and its various connections, particularly its place in the various socialist and communist movements throughout history. I don't think PSL is different in terms of line on this but WWP has made it a more noticeable part of their work.

Thing is though, it is interesting that the PSL can be very pro-LGBT on the one hand and also support states like Iran that are vehemently homophobic. Isn't there an inconsistency here?

I'm aware of many mainline Trotskyist groups that support LGBT rights in principle, but don't really spend much efforts on this issue. (Probably including your organisation) However, at least the Trots are always logically consistent internally when it comes to LGBT and other politicial issues, and are never hypocrites.

[graymouser]

Thing is though, it is interesting that the PSL can be very pro-LGBT on the one hand and also support states like Iran that are vehemently homophobic. Isn't there an inconsistency here?
Well, they explain themselves here (http://www.workers.org/2006/us/anti-iran-0720/index.html) (among other places). It's partly a question of anti-imperialism, which has become a paramount for the Marcyite groups since 1991, and partly their view that like many things, the imperialist media has distorted the actual picture - which, while it is convenient for their case, often does have at least some basis in reality.


I'm aware of many mainline Trotskyist groups that support LGBT rights in principle, but don't really spend much efforts on this issue. (Probably including your organisation) However, at least the Trots are always logically consistent internally when it comes to LGBT and other politicial issues, and are never hypocrites.
Well, I think we'd agree with the Marcyites that "The Pentagon is no vehicle for gay liberation." And the L5I does defend Iran from imperialist aggression, but doesn't see that as necessarily involving abstention from calling for more LGBT freedom, or calling for a revolutionary wing in the recent popular movements. That's the crucial difference.

But from the Marcyite point of view, anti-imperialism is the overriding concern, which does make sense if you consider their view to be essentially that there is no "third camp" that opposes both homophobia and imperialism. I think there is some connection here with Trotsky on his rejection of a "third camp" viewpoint with the Russia question. But the Marcyites on the board can discuss this more.

[Queercommie Girl]

But from the Marcyite point of view, anti-imperialism is the overriding concern, which does make sense if you consider their view to be essentially that there is no "third camp" that opposes both homophobia and imperialism. I think there is some connection here with Trotsky on his rejection of a "third camp" viewpoint with the Russia question. But the Marcyites on the board can discuss this more.


Iran however is not a worker's state like the USSR. Defending a particular people from imperialism does not necessarily imply supporting the actual state machine.

Also, many Trotskyists are "third-campists" who reject both Washington and Moscow.

And to oppose homophobia isn't the same as being a "third-campist". Opposing a singular issue like homophobia in the current Iranian state doesn't equal to opposing the Iranian state completely. One can just be a "pro-homosexuality reformist" with respect to Iran.

[graymouser]

Iran however is not a worker's state like the USSR. Defending a particular people from imperialism does not necessarily imply supporting the actual state machine.
That's as may be. I am not speaking for Marcyites here, just trying to give an accurate picture of their politics as I've been exposed to them. But as far as I know the concept of an "anti-imperialist camp" that the Marcyites see in the world does mean supporting states that are anti-imperialist even when their actions are not what you would want them to be.


Also, many Trotskyists are "third-campists" who reject both Washington and Moscow.
Well, Trotsky rejected this view in no uncertain terms. I'm just pointing out that there is some degree of continuity between Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism and Marcy's "Global Class War," although the current form of the latter is much different.


And to oppose homophobia isn't the same as being a "third-campist". Opposing a singular issue like homophobia in the current Iranian state doesn't equal to opposing the Iranian state completely. One can just be a "pro-homosexuality reformist" with respect to Iran.
From a certain point of view, perhaps. But the truth is that the Marcyites do raise a couple of valid points. First, a lot of the people doing the "pro-homosexuality" agitation about Iran really do have pro-imperialist connections and are objectively trying to channel this agitation into support for an offensive war against the people of Iran. Second, it has no context inside the country - the people who are agitating about this are mainly exiles, not people living in Iran. And if an LGBT movement in Iran did exist and was in favor of making Iran another appendage of US imperialism, could you really support it?

[Queercommie Girl]

That's as may be. I am not speaking for Marcyites here, just trying to give an accurate picture of their politics as I've been exposed to them. But as far as I know the concept of an "anti-imperialist camp" that the Marcyites see in the world does mean supporting states that are anti-imperialist even when their actions are not what you would want them to be.


The "anti-imperialist camp" concept is flawed since they are essentially treating every "anti-imperialist" state as if it were a "deformed worker's state" in the Trotskyist sense. What they don't understand is that national rights aren't actually unconditional, only class rights are.

In the old days before the fall of the USSR, there was indeed a "capitalist camp" and a "socialist camp". But objectively there is no such thing as an "anti-imperialist camp" and "imperialist camp", only developed countries and neo-colonial countries.



Well, Trotsky rejected this view in no uncertain terms. I'm just pointing out that there is some degree of continuity between Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism and Marcy's "Global Class War," although the current form of the latter is much different.


Personally I don't agree with Third Campism. I'm just pointing out the objective fact that orthodox Trotskyists like you don't speak for all Trotskyists, no more than Trotskyists speak for all Marxists.



From a certain point of view, perhaps. But the truth is that the Marcyites do raise a couple of valid points. First, a lot of the people doing the "pro-homosexuality" agitation about Iran really do have pro-imperialist connections and are objectively trying to channel this agitation into support for an offensive war against the people of Iran. Second, it has no context inside the country - the people who are agitating about this are mainly exiles, not people living in Iran. And if an LGBT movement in Iran did exist and was in favor of making Iran another appendage of US imperialism, could you really support it?


It's not such a difficult answer, I view the LGBT movement in Iran in exactly the same way as how I view the Green movement in Iran. The Green movement has been accused for being "pro-imperialist", which is certainly true to some extent, but it doesn't mean socialists cannot join in with the mass movement to some extent and steer it in a revolutionary leftist direction. The fact that the Green movement in Iran is linked to Western imperialism doesn't mean socialists have no choice but to be an anti-environmentalist. The fact that the gay movement in Iran is linked to Western imperialism doesn't mean socialists have choice but to be homophobic. There are more than two options in this game.

So to answer your question (And if an LGBT movement in Iran did exist and was in favor of making Iran another appendage of US imperialism, could you really support it?): I would neither support a pro-imperialist gay movement (transgenderism is actually already tolerated in Iran to a limited extent) in Iran nor would I support the Iranian state that is homophobic. I would call for an independent working class LGBT movement in the country that links up with the struggles of other oppressed groups and the working class movement in general. I believe a genuine socialist should never support either Western imperialism or a theocratic bourgeois state like Iran. And it is ridiculous to think that these are the only two options on the table.

So my stance here is really absolutely identical to my stance with respect to the general working class movement in Iran as a whole. I support neither pro-imperialist movements nor the Iranian state, but call for independent working class struggles.

Also, it is a mistake to assume that there is absolutely no indigenous gay movement in Iran itself today, just like it is a mistake to assume that there is no indigenous working class/socialist movement in Iran itself today.

[Kassad]

Isn't "Global Class War" merely a post-Trotskyist fusion of Maoism - Third Worldism with "tankie-ism"?

Wow. Solid analysis there, as usual.

I'll definitely get back to this thread when I find time between classes.

[Chimurenga.]

Thing is though, it is interesting that the PSL can be very pro-LGBT on the one hand and also support states like Iran that are vehemently homophobic. Isn't there an inconsistency here?

No. There is no inconsistency here. We view that Iran is actively against an Imperialist power that has prevented successful revolutions all over the past, issued crippling sanctions to strangle these countries, and have indirectly (and directly) invaded revolutionary countries. We also view that Iran is reactionary and very much to the right.

The Workers World Party was actually one of, if not the only, party at one point in time to recognize LGBT rights as an actual struggle in and of itself. The PSL is no different.


Iran however is not a worker's state like the USSR. Defending a particular people from imperialism does not necessarily imply supporting the actual state machine.

It doesn't matter. Iran is trying to independent from the US-driven world market and the people of Iran, at this current time, support that. I trust Iranians more than I do Americans to determine the course of Iran.


In the old days before the fall of the USSR, there was indeed a "capitalist camp" and a "socialist camp". But objectively there is no such thing as an "anti-imperialist camp" and "imperialist camp", only developed countries and neo-colonial countries.

This is untrue. What do call the modern day alliance with Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iran, China, and North Korea? They are all certainly part of an Anti-imperialist group, maybe not an actual "camp" yet but there is something there.

[RED DAVE]

Iran is trying to independent from the US-driven world marketFantasy. Iran is a capitalist country trying to gain leverage within the world market. It is no different than, say, Korea.


and the people of Iran, at this current time, support that. I trust Iranians more than I do Americans to determine the course of Iran.What you are saying is that you support the bourgeois government of Iran, which, like bourgeois governments everywhere, operates under the cloak of partiamentary democracy..

[B]RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

This is untrue. What do call the modern day alliance with Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iran, China, and North Korea? They are all certainly part of an Anti-imperialist group, maybe not an actual "camp" yet but there is something there.


The problem is that you are grouping together states that are hugely different in terms of their fundamental character into the same "camp" simply based on their apparent "anti-imperialist" stances.

Cuba and the DPRK are still classical deformed worker's states like the USSR and Eastern European countries were before they fell. Venezuela and Bolivia are technically still capitalist states (because there has never been an actual socialist revolution there) but they are relatively progressive because at the moment they are led by genuine left reformists like Chavez. These four states are still a part of the "socialist/semi-socialist camp" and are relatively progressive, despite being deformed in some ways, there is no disagreements here.

The PRC and Iran are very different states. The PRC today is technically a semi-deformed worker's state semi-state-capitalist state. It is not a classical deformed worker's state like the DPRK due to its huge economic inequality, the lack of basic public welfare, and the fact that big capitalists can explicitly join the Communist Party. The PRC is already on the verge of a complete counter-revolution. Iran is a theocratic bourgeois state in which the working class is heavily oppressed and economic inequality a serious problem (although still less than in China today). Iran and China are nothing like Cuba, North Korea, Bolivia and Venezuela. The latter 4 states are partially progressive, but Iran and China are reactionary states as things stand now. In fact, in terms of foreign policy I'm not even sure you can label China today as really anti-imperialist anymore. Although China is not in the same imperialist camp as the US, it does support a few imperialist policies in its own right. In this case China is even worse than Iran is. At least Iran is more consistently anti-imperialist in terms of its foreign policy, even though domestically it is reactionary.

[Chimurenga.]

The problem is that you are grouping together states that are hugely different in terms of their fundamental character into the same "camp" simply based on their apparent "anti-imperialist" stances.

Cuba and the DPRK are still classical deformed worker's states like the USSR and Eastern European countries were before they fell. Venezuela and Bolivia are technically still capitalist states (because there has never been an actual socialist revolution there) but they are relatively progressive because at the moment they are led by genuine left reformists like Chavez. These four states are still a part of the "socialist/semi-socialist camp" and are relatively progressive, despite being deformed in some ways, there is no disagreements here.

The PRC and Iran are very different states. The PRC today is technically a semi-deformed worker's state semi-state-capitalist state. It is not a classical deformed worker's state like the DPRK due to its huge economic inequality, the lack of basic public welfare, and the fact that big capitalists can explicitly join the Communist Party. The PRC is already on the verge of a complete counter-revolution. Iran is a theocratic bourgeois state in which the working class is heavily oppressed and economic inequality a serious problem (although still less than in China today). Iran and China are nothing like Cuba, North Korea, Bolivia and Venezuela. The latter 4 states are partially progressive, but Iran and China are reactionary states as things stand now. In fact, in terms of foreign policy I'm not even sure you can label China today as really anti-imperialist anymore. Although China is not in the same imperialist camp as the US, it does support a few imperialist policies in its own right. In this case China is even worse than Iran is. At least Iran is more consistently anti-imperialist in terms of its foreign policy, even though domestically it is reactionary.

It doesn't matter what these countries path are; capitalism, socialism, social democracy, whatever. They are actively against US imperialism. That is the basic feature to which they are allied to.

[Chimurenga.]

What you are saying is that you support the bourgeois government of Iran, which, like bourgeois governments everywhere, operates under the cloak of partiamentary democracy..

Because I am an anti-imperialist, I recognize that Iran has the right to determine its own course, and I recognize that the Iranian people determined (and fully support) their elected leadership, yes. Even though I realize that they are right-wing, reactionary, and for what I'm against.

The US is directly responsible for Iran turning to the Right instead of the Left with their acts of war, sanctions, puppet governments, the list goes on. Nevertheless, like I said before, I trust the Iranians to determine the course of Iran than I do the Americans.

[gorillafuck]

Because I am an anti-imperialist, I recognize that Iran has the right to determine its own course, and I recognize that the Iranian people determined (and fully support) their elected leadership, yes. Even though I realize that they are right-wing, reactionary, and for what I'm against.
You fully support the elected leadership of a right-wing government that executes leftists?

Do you not give a shit about the leftists in Iran or are you just a moron?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wow. Solid analysis there, as usual.

I'll definitely get back to this thread when I find time between classes.

That wasn't an "analysis," but a one-line question. No, it wasn't a rhetorical one, either, otherwise your sarcasm would have been valid.

[Hit The North]

It doesn't matter what these countries path are; capitalism, socialism, social democracy, whatever. They are actively against US imperialism. That is the basic feature to which they are allied to.

In what sense is China actively against US imperialism, except in terms of how it may clash with Chinese imperialism?


The total trade (http://www.economywatch.com/international-economic-relations/us-china-economic-relation.html) between [the US and China] was $33 billion in the year 1992, which increased to over $285.3 billion in 2005. Presently United States is China's second-largest partner in the field of trading (http://www.economywatch.com/international-economic-relations/us-china-economic-relation.html). U.S. importsfile:///C:/Users/Mitch/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (http://www.economywatch.com/international-economic-relations/us-china-economic-relation.html)
from China grew 18% in 2005, bringing the U.S. trade deficit with China to more than $200 billion.

The direct investments made by the United States in China particularly cover the areas such as manufacturing, hotel projects, restaurants, and petrochemicals. It is found that 100 U.S.-based multinationals are with the projects in China. The Cumulative U.S. investment in China has crossed $54 billions.

http://www.economywatch.com/international-economic-relations/us-china-economic-relation.html

[Chimurenga.]

You fully support the elected leadership of a right-wing government that executes leftists?

Do you not give a shit about the leftists in Iran or are you just a moron?

Genius, let me break this down for you. The majority of Iran voted for the leadership of Ahmadinejad. The majority of them were working class Iranians. I never said that I "fully supported" anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth. If anything, I fully support the people of Iran.

The options on the table were, the anti-imperialist, right-wing reactionary leadership of Ahmadinejad or the US-puppet, Mousavi. There were no other options. The Iranian people knew it and somehow the American "left" still doesn't get it.

Anyways, this isn't a thread about Iran, it's about Sam Marcy. One of the earliest documents containing the "Global Class War" theory was written by Vincent Copeland at the time when he and Sam Marcy were still in the Socialist Workers Party. It's on the topic of the Hungarian Uprising and there was a split in the SWP at the time, the majority of the SWP automatically supported the uprising because it was "Anti-Stalinist". Meanwhile, Marcy and Copeland found the situation to be more than black and white. Anyways, here it is:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwDPOkz150f-ODNhZjgyNjctNzA5Zi00ODkxLTg3N2ItZDkyZDUxZmYwYzA4&hl=en&pli=1

[Chimurenga.]

In what sense is China actively against US imperialism, except in terms of how it may clash with Chinese imperialism?

http://www.economywatch.com/international-economic-relations/us-china-economic-relation.html

Cool story. So having trade with the US and the US having businesses in China (all while not mentioning that the US has to abide by the standards proposed by the Chinese Communist Party) is now equal to imperialism?

How are they against US imperialism? By trading and having stable relations with countries that US has strict sanctions and blockades with, by constantly siding with these same countries in the face of US imperialist aggression, and by forcing unions and a high tax rate on US companies that open shop in China. Just a few examples but once again, we're diverting from the point of this thread. Lets get back on topic now.

[RED DAVE]

Genius, let me break this down for you. The majority of Iran voted for the leadership of Ahmadinejad. The majority of them were working class Iranians. I never said that I "fully supported" anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth. If anything, I fully support the people of Iran.The majority of working class people in the United States voted for the leadership of Obama.


The options on the table were, the anti-imperialist, right-wing reactionary leadership of Ahmadinejad or the US-puppet, Mousavi. There were no other options. The Iranian people knew it and somehow the American "left" still doesn't get it.In what sense is Iran anti-imperialist?

RED DAVE

[penguinfoot]

They are actively against US imperialism

What does it mean to say that these countries are against imperialism? All of the foremost theorists of imperialism after Marx from Luxemburg to Lenin treated imperialism not as a set of policies that are pursued by some countries and which mark those countries out as different from the rest of the world, but, at least in Lenin and Bukharin's cases, as a determinate phase in the evolution of capitalism, a phase that comes about as a product of processes that are inherent to the commodity-form itself such as concentration and centralization and capital but which nonetheless realize themselves fully only during the epoch of imperialism. In this sense the concept of imperialism for Marxists is consistent with the main body of Marx's method and the analysis that is offered in Capital because it is about moving from the abstract to the concrete, beginning with the basic principles and laws that constitute capitalist relations of production at a highly abstract level and then seeking to understand how these principles and laws manifest themselves and operate in specific social contexts, including at different stages of capitalism's evolution as a dynamic and historically-situated mode of production, as reflected in the fact that Marx begins Capital with an analysis of the simple commodity and only later goes on to examine what happens when labour power itself exists as a commodity and how commodities are exchanged between different economic actors, such as different segments of the capitalist class. You seem to be suggesting that imperialism is something that can be escaped or overthrown when this meaning is alien to the whole of the classical Marxist tradition, who all acknowledged that imperialism is nothing but the condition that capitalism manifests in its advanced stages, that all countries are enmeshed in an imperialist world-system whether they like it not, and that this system imposes imperatives on all countries concerned, regardless of the rhetorical objections their governments may offer. An obvious consequence of this is that one of the countries you deem "anti-imperialist", North Korea, is currently pursuing SEZs on the Chinese model, in Sinuiju and other locations, and, on its own website, offers the lowest wage-rates in the whole of Asia to prospective clients.

[gorillafuck]

Genius, let me break this down for you. The majority of Iran voted for the leadership of Ahmadinejad. The majority of them were working class Iranians. I never said that I "fully supported" anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth. If anything, I fully support the people of Iran.
Oh, I misunderstood when you said fully support in parenthesis. My bad.

By the way, Chile has elections. Do you support whoever they elect?


The options on the table were, the anti-imperialist, right-wing reactionary leadership of Ahmadinejad or the US-puppet, Mousavi. There were no other options. The Iranian people knew it and somehow the American "left" still doesn't get it. So we shouldn't support Iranian socialists because socialism isn't a big movement in Iran? Well guess what, it isn't in the US either. But I guess groups like the PSL in the US matter, since ya know, they're AMERICAN socialists. Iranian socialists don't, though. To be a leftist movement worth supporting, you either have to be a large movement, or be AMERICAN. That's the way of the world, right?

[Chimurenga.]

The majority of working class people in the United States voted for the leadership of Obama.

Some Cliffite fool tried pointing this out to me before and here was my response:

"Is Obama the leader of a third world country resisting becoming a puppet state to the largest empire in the world? No, he's not."


In what sense is Iran anti-imperialist?

Siding, trading, and having stable relations with countries that US has blockades, sanctions, or practice indirect aggression against and resisting a US puppet being elected to office are the two latest examples off the top of my head. [/QUOTE]

[Hit The North]

Cool story. So having trade with the US and the US having businesses in China (all while not mentioning that the US has to abide by the standards proposed by the Chinese Communist Party) is now equal to imperialism?


What standards are they? From what I can tell they are little different from the conditions imposed on foreign and domestic corporations by the European Union. Is the EU therefore an anti-imperialist force?

And do you think that doing business with the USA is the best way of undermining American imperialism?


How are they against US imperialism? By trading and having stable relations with countries that US has strict sanctions and blockades with, by constantly siding with these same countries in the face of US imperialist aggression, and by forcing unions and a high tax rate on US companies that open shop in China.
How is this, in itself, anti-imperialist? It would appear to be a sensible strategy of using a competitors weakness against them in order to increase leverage. Do you believe that Chinese overseas investment is part of China's attempt to export socialism across the world, or something?

Meanwhile, how is the following not the typical activity of a global imperialist power:


Overseas investment in mining, manufacturing and other non-financial sectors reached 43.3 billion US dollars last year, Commerce Ministry spokesman Yao Jian said at a news conference in Beijing.
The growth, however, was far more modest than a 63.6% annual jump in 2008, when investment hit 40.65 billion USD.
“Acquiring foreign advanced technologies, distribution networks and energy and resources became the new focus of acquisition investment” the ministry said in a statement after the briefing.
The pace of buying picked up sharply in the second half of 2009 as the worst of the crisis seemed to be over, after diving by 51.% year-on-year in the first half, previous official data showed.
China has been keen to buy resources around the world as it seeks to take advantage of falling prices in the global downturn and to secure energy supplies for its economic expansion.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/01/15/chinas-overseas-investments-expand-6.5-in-2009-40-forecasted-in-2010

Can one be both imperialist and anti-imperialist at the same time?


Just a few examples but once again, we're diverting from the point of this thread. Lets get back on topic now. Not really off-topic, as it illustrates the political bankruptcy and flight from reality which underpins this so-called Marcyism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Cool story. So having trade with the US and the US having businesses in China (all while not mentioning that the US has to abide by the standards proposed by the Chinese Communist Party) is now equal to imperialism?

How are they against US imperialism? By trading and having stable relations with countries that US has strict sanctions and blockades with, by constantly siding with these same countries in the face of US imperialist aggression, and by forcing unions and a high tax rate on US companies that open shop in China. Just a few examples but once again, we're diverting from the point of this thread. Lets get back on topic now.

While what you said here is true, are you also aware of the fact that Chinese capitalists are now directly exploiting workers in Africa and that the Chinese state is actively arresting radical Maoist trade unionists like Zhao Dongmin in China itself and in some ways treating them more harshly than ethnic separatists from Xinjiang and Tibet? Don't just only pick out the relatively positive aspects about China and ignore the negative aspects, that's what People's Daily tends to do nowadays.

At most, the anti-imperialist measures of China are only half-hearted and extremely opportunistic. Of course, even if China is a fully capitalist and imperialist country in its own right, objectively it is still better to have a "multi-polar" world with various competing imperialisms than to have an "uni-polar" world dominated by a single US imperialism, even if it's only a side product of nationalist competition. But that's certainly not the same as saying the China is a firmly anti-imperialist country intrinsically.

[RED DAVE]

The majority of working class people in the United States voted for the leadership of Obama.
Some Cliffite fool tried pointing this out to me before and here was my response:

"Is Obama the leader of a third world country resisting becoming a puppet state to the largest empire in the world? No, he's not."To which the Cliffite should have responded:

"Is Iran a capitalist nation? Yes, it is. We should support nations such as Iran only insofar as they are engaged in specific struggles against imperialism. If the US invaded Iran, we would call for victory for Iran over the US (in the same way that we called for victory of the NLF in Vietnam). However, Iran is a capitalist country. To support the government of Iran in any way except specifically against US imperialism is a fucking joke, fool."


In what sense is Iran anti-imperialist?
Siding, trading, and having stable relations with countries that US has blockades, sanctions, or practice indirect aggression against and resisting a US puppet being elected to office are the two latest examples off the top of my head.You need to put the top of your head back on. What Iran is doing is maneuvering within the world economy for a better trading position.

Here is the truth about Iran's "anti-imperialist" trade:


October 08, 2010 (Hamsayeh.Net) - Iran’s exports of petrochemical products reached $4 billion in the first six months of the Iranian calendar year starting March 21 each year.

The country exported 7.4 million tons of petrochemical products including Methanol, propane and butane, urea, ethylene and sulfur to international market. The country’s major trading partners are China, Japan, Turkey and UAE.(emph. added)

http://www.hamsayeh.net/hamsayehnet_iran-international%20news1754.htm

Iran's anti-imperialist trade with the US, in 2009, amounted to exports of $280.4 million and imports of $64.6 million.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5070.html#2009


RED DAVE

[Imposter Marxist]

Thank you all very much, I was interested in the WWP and the PSL, but I wanted more information.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Workers World Party was actually one of, if not the only, party at one point in time to recognize LGBT rights as an actual struggle in and of itself. The PSL is no different.


If you would excuse me, but I'm not going to buy your sectarian propaganda on this issue. Every sect likes to paint itself as "the only organisation that truly supports queer rights" and accuses others for being dishonest on this issue.

For now, I'm only going to assume that WWP and PSL are not homophobic or transphobic in general, that's it.

No offence.

[Dick Van Guard]

How are they against US imperialism? By trading and having stable relations with countries that US has strict sanctions and blockades with, by constantly siding with these same countries in the face of US imperialist aggression, and by forcing unions and a high tax rate on US companies that open shop in China. Just a few examples but once again, we're diverting from the point of this thread. Lets get back on topic now.Wow. Many European countries do the same - are they also "anti-imperialist"?

[Chimurenga.]

If you would excuse me, but I'm not going to buy your sectarian propaganda on this issue. Every sect likes to paint itself as "the only organisation that truly supports queer rights" and accuses others for being dishonest on this issue.

For now, I'm only going to assume that WWP and PSL are not homophobic or transphobic in general, that's it.

No offence.

Really? Is it that hard to believe?

Welp, here are two articles by prominent and well-known trans writer Leslie Feinberg about how the WWP applied Marxism to the gay question in the early 70's,

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-81/index.html
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-82/index.html

[Queercommie Girl]

Really? Is it that hard to believe?

Welp, here is an article by prominent and well-known trans writer Leslie Feinberg about how the WWP applied Marxism to the gay question in the early 70's,

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-82/index.html

I'm not saying your party is not genuine when it comes to LGBT activism, if that's what you are thinking.

I'm saying you have no right to accuse other organisations of being "dishonest" on this issue, as if only your organisation has the "correct line" on queer activism. That's just a blatant example of sectarianism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think there is some connection here with Trotsky on his rejection of a "third camp" viewpoint with the Russia question. But the Marcyites on the board can discuss this more.

Sounds more similar to the views of Michel Pablo who claimed that world reality consisted basically of capitalism and stalinism, ignoring the independent working class as a factor...

"He adopted the conception of "global class war," in which the conflict between US imperialism and the Soviet bloc was seen as superseding the class struggle internationally and within each country. The international working class was ignored as an independent force, dissolved into the Soviet bureaucracy and various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist forces that were in conflict with Washington. The need for continued defense of the Soviet Union against imperialism, as well as the defense of the colonial and semicolonial masses against imperialist oppression, was converted into support for the national bourgeoisie and Stalinism."

[Chimurenga.]

I'm not saying your party is not genuine when it comes to LGBT activism, if that's what you are thinking.

I'm saying you have no right to accuse other organisations of being "dishonest" on this issue, as if only your organisation has the "correct line" on queer activism. That's just a blatant example of sectarianism.

I didn't accuse other organizations of being dishonest. I'm just saying that LGBT struggles didn't become the norm for Communist parties until later. This is a fact. Many parties in the United States took the line that homosexuality equals bourgeois decadence without really examining the issue. One example of this was the Revolutionary Communist Party.

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-79/ - As Leslie points out there, the WWP, through the group Youth Against War and Fascism, they fought for LGBT rights before even the Stonewall Rebellions.

What I'm talking about here is the Workers World Party, who I am not a member of, so how can I be promoting my party as having the "correct line on queer activism"?

I think you're really misinterpreting what I'm saying, if you're even reading my posts in the first place.

[Queercommie Girl]

I didn't accuse other organizations of being dishonest. I'm just saying that LGBT struggles didn't become the norm for Communist parties until later. This is a fact. Many parties in the United States took the line that homosexuality equals bourgeois decadence without really examining the issue. One example of this was the Revolutionary Communist Party.


Yes, the RCP was pretty homophobic back in those early days, true.

But the "communist" parties were not the only revolutionary socialist organisations back then. Many Trotskyist and anarchist groups also had relatively progressive positions on this matter, not all of them by any means of course.

Oh, but wait, a sectarian like you don't even consider Trots and anarchists to be "genuine socialists"...



http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-79/ - As Leslie points out there, the WWP, through the group Youth Against War and Fascism, they fought for LGBT rights before even the Stonewall Rebellions.


Good for you. Didn't I say I'm a critical supporter of PSL? I'm not anti-PSL or anti-WWP.



What I'm talking about here is the Workers World Party, who I am not a member of, so how can I be promoting my party as having the "correct line on queer activism"?


Everyone knows the close links between WWP and PSL. The WWP was like the "forerunner" of PSL today.



I think you're really misinterpreting what I'm saying, if you're even reading my posts in the first place.


I'm not misinterpreting you, so save your accusations for someone else. You said the WWP/PSL might have been the "only (revolutionary socialist) organisation" to promote LGBT rights properly.

[Brother No. 1]

Many Trotskyist and anarchist groups also had relatively progressive positions on this matter,

Was this before or after they decided to actually view the LGBT movement difference in the Russian situation and that of the North American situation?

[Chimurenga.]

But the "communist" parties were not the only revolutionary socialist organisations back then. Many Trotskyist and anarchist groups also had relatively progressive positions on this matter, not all of them by any means of course.

Really, can you show me specific organizations that were at the front lines of LGBT struggles around the same time, before it became expected for Communist parties? Just for the record, I'd like to be proven wrong on this issue.


Oh, but wait, a sectarian like you don't even consider Trots and anarchists to be "genuine socialists"...

Nice strawman. When did I ever say this? I have nothing against Trotskyists or Anarchists if they don't follow the road to liberalism and if they don't adopt an awful line on imperialism. On the whole, I have to admit, I'm not very impressed.


I'm not misinterpreting you, so save your accusations for someone else. You said the WWP/PSL might have been the "only (revolutionary socialist) organisation" to promote LGBT rights properly.

Well, what I've posted is certainly evidence of that. If you choose to believe it or not, I don't really care. It's not such a ridiculous claim as you're making it out to be.

[28350]

It is basically awesome.

[manic expression]

How is this, in itself, anti-imperialist? It would appear to be a sensible strategy of using a competitors weakness against them in order to increase leverage. Do you believe that Chinese overseas investment is part of China's attempt to export socialism across the world, or something?
Don't be silly, that's not what we defend. What we defend in the PRC are the institutions of working-class rule that can and thus should be used to reestablish socialism in opposition to the market mechanisms in place today.


Meanwhile, how is the following not the typical activity of a global imperialist power:
Because typical global imperialist powers don't have a worker state apparatus...and because typical global imperialist powers put the market in control of society.


"Is Iran a capitalist nation? Yes, it is. We should support nations such as Iran only insofar as they are engaged in specific struggles against imperialism. If the US invaded Iran, we would call for victory for Iran over the US (in the same way that we called for victory of the NLF in Vietnam). However, Iran is a capitalist country. To support the government of Iran in any way except specifically against US imperialism is a fucking joke, fool."
Good thing, then, that this is precisely the case: it is SPECIFICALLY against US imperialism, and that qualification is reemphasized at practically every turn.


You need to put the top of your head back on. What Iran is doing is maneuvering within the world economy for a better trading position.
If you said this onstage, it would bring down the house. If you actually think opposing US influence is jockeying for a "better trading position", you're flatly insane. Iran has endured plenty of economic setback because of their opposition to US imperialism.

[Imposter Marxist]

I think I understand this. They support anti-Imperialist, or anti-USAEmpire actions from any government/movement, but not exactly supporting the movement of government itself. I'm visiting my local WWP because of this thread, thanks guys!:D

[Kléber]

The PSL and WWP claim to just be anti-imperialist, but they support the Chinese bourgeoisie under Deng Xiaoping when it repressed workers and youth during the Tiananmen Square Incident, and I'm guessing they would justify the oppression of indigenous peoples in Tibet and Xinjiang as well.

[Chimurenga.]

The PSL and WWP claim to just be anti-imperialist, but they support the Chinese bourgeoisie under Deng Xiaoping when it repressed workers and youth during the Tiananmen Square Incident

I suppose the real anti-imperialist position is to support the student protests, support them in taking arms and tanks, supporting them in taking state power, and in turn, fully welcome US Imperialism as a whole back into China!

:lol:


The political character of the Tiananmen demonstrations
There were a large number of students involved in the demonstrations, but it is important to note that China’s university students at the time made up only 0.2 percent of the country’s population of 1.1 billion. And while there were many political trends within the student movement, there was a dominant leadership group. The goals of this group had nothing to do with democracy for China’s vast majority of poor and working people.
Some claim that the student protesters had vague demands. But one force that understood the students’ orientation very clearly was U.S. imperialism. Their signs were in English. Their symbol, the so-called “Goddess of Democracy,” bore a striking resemblance to the Statue of Liberty. Many expressed their hope of founding a new student organization on July 4—Independence Day in the United States.
None of the students spoke in the name of internationalism, socialism or communism.
Wang Dan, one of the central leaders of the student movement, was quoted in the June 3 New York Times: “The movement is not ready for worker participation because the principles of democracy must first be absorbed by students and intellectuals before they can be spread to others.” In a June 2, 1993, interview with the Washington Post, Dan goes further to say that “the pursuit of wealth [was] part of the impetus for democracy.”
Clearly, he was not talking about workers’ socialist democracy, where the needs of the people are met first and foremost. The quote—like those of other student leaders—gives a hint as to what they meant by “freedom”: the freedom for China to open its market to capitalism, and consequently the freedom of the capitalist world market to exploit Chinese workers.


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

Get real.

[Kléber]

The PSL's mechanical approach there - if we support the CPC in 1949 we must support it through 1989 and beyond - ignores the fact that during the incident, the Chinese government was already allied with US imperialism and was already restoring market capitalism. Typical for a tankie outlook, the working class and its role in the protests is completely ignored since the police state is the real working class. Also ignored are crowds of protesters who sang the Internationale and carried Mao portraits in favor of a couple people wearing Nikes. That some petty-bourgeois students were wearing American-style clothes and learning English because Western capitalist culture only shows that the CPC party-state under Deng Xiaoping was successful in promoting Western capitalist culture.

In fact, the protests were slowly losing steam during the first, student-led period, but acquired a mass character that the government could not ignore when workers took to the streets to demand better living conditions and freedom to organize. 0.2% of the population were not a threat to the ruling clique, streets full of marching workers were. The people who put up barricades in districts leading up to the squares and the "lumpen" or "hooligans" executed afterward for resisting the army were not students.

There is plenty of criticism to be made of the student leaders, a few in particular, but what kind of Marxist analysis ignores the proletariat and apologizes for Deng Xiaoping down the line? Youth can help kick off mass movements, they work better than tanks anyway; look at May 1968 in France or the May Fourth Movement of 1919 which the Tiananmen protesters tried to emulate. Real criticism of the Tiananmen protesters highlights the need for revolutionary leadership, not state repression. It would help the Marcyite stance on this subject were at least more informed than "You're against Communism in China? Really? Really?" Even moreso today when China has been seen growing working-class militancy over the past few years, it is ridiculous at best to defend the billionaire oligarchs of the "Communist" party.

Please watch Carma Hinton's documentary, it's from a Maoist perspective but I completely agree. Has footage of the hundreds of thousands of workers marching in support of the protests, and interviews with many of them, there is even footage of some soldiers helping the protesters. It used to be online, now this is the best version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ou2-Kv4UA

[Barry Lyndon]

The PSL's mechanical approach there - if we support the CPC in 1949 we must support it through 1989 and beyond - ignores the fact that during the incident, the Chinese government was already allied with US imperialism and was already restoring market capitalism. Typical for a tankie outlook, the working class and its role in the protests is completely ignored since the police state is the real working class. Also ignored are crowds of protesters who sang the Internationale and carried Mao portraits in favor of a couple people wearing Nikes. That some petty-bourgeois students were wearing American-style clothes and learning English because Western capitalist culture only shows that the CPC party-state under Deng Xiaoping was successful in promoting Western capitalist culture.

In fact, the protests were slowly losing steam during the first, student-led period, but acquired a mass character that the government could not ignore when workers took to the streets to demand better living conditions and freedom to organize. 0.2% of the population were not a threat to the ruling clique, streets full of marching workers were. The people who put up barricades in districts leading up to the squares and the "lumpen" or "hooligans" executed afterward for resisting the army were not students.

There is plenty of criticism to be made of the student leaders, a few in particular, but what kind of Marxist analysis ignores the proletariat and apologizes for Deng Xiaoping down the line? Youth can help kick off mass movements, they work better than tanks anyway; look at May 1968 in France or the May Fourth Movement of 1919 which the Tiananmen protesters tried to emulate. Real criticism of the Tiananmen protesters highlights the need for revolutionary leadership, not state repression. It would help the Marcyite stance on this subject were at least more informed than "You're against Communism in China? Really? Really?" Even moreso today when China has been seen growing working-class militancy over the past few years, it is ridiculous at best to defend the billionaire oligarchs of the "Communist" party.

Please watch Carma Hinton's documentary, it's from a Maoist perspective but I completely agree. Has footage of the hundreds of thousands of workers marching in support of the protests, and interviews with many of them, there is even footage of some soldiers helping the protesters. It used to be online, now this is the best version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ou2-Kv4UA

This.

Do you know where I can get the full documentary, Kleber?

Apparently for the PSL and WWP, as long as a country waves the red flag and calls itself 'socialist', then that is what it is. Who cares if it collaborates with US imperialism and massacres leftists and workers!

[manic expression]

Obviously Kleber hasn't read anything the PSL has had to say about the issue, because their misconceptions are endless. If Kleber had taken the time to read the article in proletarianrevolution's link, they would see that the effects of PRC-US relations, the position of workers in relation to the demonstrations, the class and political makeup of the protests, the consequences of the PRC's move toward capitalist production and other aspects are all covered. So either Kleber is too lazy or too incompetent to figure out what position the PSL actually takes. Whatever the case, it's hard to take Kleber seriously when their argument at hand consists entirely of making stuff up.

[Barry Lyndon]

Obviously Kleber hasn't read anything the PSL has had to say about the issue, because their misconceptions are endless. If Kleber had taken the time to read the article in proletarianrevolution's link, they would see that the effects of PRC-US relations, the position of workers in relation to the demonstrations, the class and political makeup of the protests, the consequences of the PRC's move toward capitalist production and other aspects are all covered. So either Kleber is too lazy or too incompetent to figure out what position the PSL actually takes. Whatever the case, it's hard to take Kleber seriously when their argument at hand consists entirely of making stuff up.

I have read the PSL's articles, and their just trash. They either use red herrings to try to avoid the main issue- by pointing out that the violence was not technically in Tiananmen Square, or just uncritically parrot the CCP's justifications for the massacre, such as the absurd charge that unarmed students were attacking and murdering heavily armed soldiers(weirdly resembling the Israeli propaganda that their naval commandoes were 'defending themselves' from vicious peace activists). In addition, making arguments that those who oppose the Chinese governments actions want capitalism restored to China, as if that is not exactly the road the CCP has taken China down to begin with.

There's no engagement with the documentary that Kleber put forth, and the stance that most Maoists take, that the massacre did occur and was the act of a reactionary bureacracy squelching opposition to capitalist reforms.

[Chimurenga.]

Ok. Here is another article. This one from 1996 and a bit more detailed.


`THE PURSUIT OF WEALTH'

For example, Chai Ling, who the students recognized as the "comman der-in-chief" of the Tienanmen demonstrations, gave an interview to Western reporters on the eve of the June 4 riots. In the interview, first aired in the "Gate of Heavenly Peace" film, she says her goal was to provoke the Chinese Communist Party into attacking the demonstrations.
She says she hoped it would galvanize the Chinese population to overthrow the CCP.
Overthrow the Chinese Communist Party? That would have been news to many of the participants in the student demonstrations. In fact, she wept during the interview, describing how bad she felt that she could not explain her real plans to the students.
Of course, it was not news to all the students. Wuer Kaixi, another student leader interviewed for "The Gate of Heavenly Peace," said the student movement was for the right "to wear Nikes."
This leader didn't seem to be confused about what "democracy and freedom" meant-it meant the right of Western corporations to plunder the Chinese market.
Another student leader, Wang Dan, said in the days before the demonstration was dispersed that "the movement is not ready for worker participation because democracy must first be absorbed by the students and intellectuals before they can spread it to others." In a June 4, 1993, Washington Post interview, he was even more blunt.
"The pursuit of wealth is part of the impetus for democracy," he said. "The south," referring to the region in China where capitalist enterprise has gone the furthest, "is China's new hope."
Western capitalists understood this orientation toward capitalist democracy. The Voice of America broadcast countless hours of propaganda supporting the demonstrations. Corporations like AT&T spent millions of dollars providing fax machines and long-distance calls to the United States.
What would have been the effect had the student demonstrations contributed to fracturing China's socialist government, which had already gone through decades of internal struggle over what road to take? At the time, only speculation was possible.
Now, you have only to look at the collapsed Soviet Union for a measure of the human destruction such a counter-revolution would wreak. In China, a developing country with over a billion people, the devastation would have been magnified 10-fold.
The CCP had introduced some capitalist market reforms after Mao Zedong's death, when the grouping around Deng Xiaoping assumed Party leadership. These reforms, which allowed many of those who had been purged during the Cultural Revolution to return to privileged positions, had encouraged "pragmatism"-meaning learn from the capitalist countries.
Many Chinese youths were sent to study abroad, where they enjoyed luxuries unthinkable in China. The reforms helped create the social basis for the student demonstrations.
But even with the economic changes that have taken place in China, the CCP continues to be rooted in socialized property. The state-including the People's Liberation Army--remains an obstacle to complete capitalist restoration in China. It has also prevented China from being broken up into different pieces to be sold to the highest corporate bidders.
A BATTLE, NOT A MASSACRE

A factor that eroded the solidarity of many progressives with the Chinese government at the time was the imperialist media's mass campaign to portray the suppression of the riots as a "massacre." In the weeks following the movement's defeat, there was endless speculation claiming that thousands-even tens of thousands!--of students had been killed in Tienanmen Square.
These portrayals have been proven false.
In fact, even bourgeois reporters have admitted there was no such massacre. As early as June 13, 1989, New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof reported that no students were killed in the square-that the fighting occurred in the streets leading to the square. At that time, Kristof wrote that "there is no firm indication that troops fired on students" occupying Tienanmen Square.
Elaborating on that report, in a Jan. 16, 1990, article, Kristof related how pop singer Hou Dejian, who was present throughout the night as the square was cleared, "had seen no one killed in Tienanmen Square." He said that at 5 a.m. on June 4, the 3,000 students remaining in the square marched out peacefully.
In the same Jan. 16 article, Kristof estimated that hundreds-not thousands or tens of thousands-were killed. The Chinese government reported that 300 people were killed, roughly half students and half soldiers.
The number of casualties and their location is important because the media have given everyone the impression that Chinese government troops gunned down peaceful demonstrators in the square. In fact, the casualties took place in the outlying streets, where small detachments of armed students and others fought, sometimes hand to hand, with the People's Liberation Army.
Television footage shows rioters firebombing tanks and buses full of soldiers, dragging them out and beating them. Some were burned alive in the vehicles. These soldiers were not some hardened fascist force, but young peasants recently recruited from the countryside.
A June 5, 1989, Washington Post report described how the rioters organized into squads of 100-150, armed with chains, Molotov cocktails and iron clubs, to meet the PLA. PLA soldiers had been unarmed in the days leading up to the decision to clear the square.
In other words, the June 4 events were a battle-not a massacre.
To this day, Western powers are doing everything in their power to dismantle the Chinese workers' state. The continuing capitalist reforms in China mean there is a growing-if still relatively small-bourgeois class in China with which the imperialists can find common cause.
Leslie Gelb wrote a Nov. 13, 1991, New York Times column about a plan to suck the industrial zones of coastal China into the imperialist orbit. Citing a report by then-Secretary of State Howard Baker, Gelb said "the southern provinces and Hong Kong ... along with Taiwan could demand self-determination."
The United States, he wrote, would not be "above using the implied threat of separatism" against China. The recent Taiwan election revolved around this threat-first formulated by the State Department.
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

[Chimurenga.]

I have read the PSL's articles, and their just trash. They either use red herrings to try to avoid the main issue- by pointing out that the violence was not technically in Tiananmen Square,

No one was saying that violence didn't occur. Violence did occur. However it was not a "massacre" as half of the bodies found were of students and half of the bodies found were PLA soldiers. Therefore, it was not a massacre but like the article I just posted pointed out, it was a battle.


such as the absurd charge that unarmed students were attacking and murdering heavily armed soldiers

Really? Is it that hard to believe? Well, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times didn't have trouble reporting it. Despite the US bourgeoisie hailing the protests as "pro-Democracy", saying that there were "thousands of victims" and standing behind the protesters.


There's no engagement with the documentary that Kleber put forth, and the stance that most Maoists take, that the massacre did occur and was the act of a reactionary bureacracy squelching opposition to capitalist reforms.

Well, as I have pointed out, many people within the protests welcomed capitalism as a whole being brought back and wanted to abolish the Socialist system in China.

[graymouser]

Well, as I have pointed out, many people within the protests welcomed capitalism as a whole being brought back and wanted to abolish the Socialist system in China.
The Chinese government has welcomed capitalism as a whole back into China - indeed, on an immensely larger scale than it previously existed - and has effectively abolished the workers' state (albeit a degenerate one from its birth) as it had existed under Mao with a far greater efficiency than the Tienanmen protesters ever could have. So where does that leave the people who stood by the government in 1989?

[Hit The North]

Don't be silly, that's not what we defend. What we defend in the PRC are the institutions of working-class rule that can and thus should be used to reestablish socialism in opposition to the market mechanisms in place today.

Because typical global imperialist powers don't have a worker state apparatus...and because typical global imperialist powers put the market in control of society.


This demonstrates your complete flight from reality and shows that you know nothing about the state of the working class in China today. What "institutions of working class rule"? What "worker state apparatus"? At the present time the Chinese working class have been whipped into producing one of the most impressive expansions of capitalism in human history.

This article is good reflection of what's happening in China:

http://wspus.org/2010/09/china%E2%80%99s-working-class-drives-capitalist-development/

The Chinese working class is important, not because it has inherited your fantasy "worker state apparatus", but because it is engaged in a life and death struggle with the capitalist mode of production in China itself.

All you are proving is that your politics do not extend beyond championing the institutions of state capitalism.

[Barry Lyndon]

You are a seriously deluded bunch. Even Marxist-Leninists and Maoists don't think that the PRC is socialist anymore. Housing, health care and education has been privatized and multinational corporations control much of China's industrial base, there's basically nothing left for the working class to defend.
I'm not a fan of the Cliffite state-capitalist theory but if any country is state-capitalist, it's China.

Just a question-if there was a armed workers uprising in Shanghai or another major industrial center against the Special Economic Zones set up by the Dengists, which side would you support?

[Chimurenga.]

The Chinese government has welcomed capitalism as a whole back into China - indeed, on an immensely larger scale than it previously existed - and has effectively abolished the workers' state (albeit a degenerate one from its birth) as it had existed under Mao with a far greater efficiency than the Tienanmen protesters ever could have. So where does that leave the people who stood by the government in 1989?

No. Capitalism as a whole is NOT back into China. Take a look at these employment statistics from 2006,

http://www.freewebs.com/technoclown/EmploymentFigures.htm

58%, 221 million Chinese workers either work in a State, Collective, or Joint owned workplace. Meanwhile, 28%, 107 million Chinese workers work in a privately owned workplace. Central planning is still the main mode of operation within the economy.

Yes, contradictions exist. Yes, capitalism does thrive there but many of the Socialist gains and features still exist in China today. Gains that, if the Tienanmen Square protesters were to be successful, they would be rolled back on a massive scale and the fifty-eight percent state/collective/joint ownership would be reduced drastically and the private ownership would've skyrocketed.

[Chimurenga.]

You are a seriously deluded bunch. Even Marxist-Leninists and Maoists don't think that the PRC is socialist anymore.

That is not true at all. FRSO (Fight Back) shares pretty much the same view of China as we do.


Housing, health care and education has been privatized

Can you prove this? I do know that private schools do exist in China. However, as a whole, housing, health care, and education has not been completely privatized.


and multinational corporations control much of China's industrial base, there's basically nothing left for the working class to defend.

Actually, no, they don't. They may control some but definitely not the majority.


Just a question-if there was a armed workers uprising in Shanghai or another major industrial center against the Special Economic Zones set up by the Dengists, which side would you support?

The side that suppresses any chance whatsoever of imperialist invasion.

[The Red Next Door]

Thing is though, it is interesting that the PSL can be very pro-LGBT on the one hand and also support states like Iran that are vehemently homophobic. Isn't there an inconsistency here?

I'm aware of many mainline Trotskyist groups that support LGBT rights in principle, but don't really spend much efforts on this issue. (Probably including your organisation) However, at least the Trots are always logically consistent internally when it comes to LGBT and other politicial issues, and are never hypocrites.

We do not support Iran, we defend them from imperialism.

[RED DAVE]

No. Capitalism as a whole is NOT back into China. Take a look at these employment statistics from 2006,

http://www.freewebs.com/technoclown/EmploymentFigures.htm

58%, 221 million Chinese workers either work in a State, Collective, or Joint owned workplace. Meanwhile, 28%, 107 million Chinese workers work in a privately owned workplace. Central planning is still the main mode of operation within the economy.

Yes, contradictions exist. Yes, capitalism does thrive there but many of the Socialist gains and features still exist in China today. Gains that, if the Tienanmen Square protesters were to be successful, they would be rolled back on a massive scale and the fifty-eight percent state/collective/joint ownership would be reduced drastically and the private ownership would've skyrocketed.(1) State capitalism is still capitalism. Surplus value is extracted from the working class in a manner over which they have no control.

(2) Fully capitalist countries, such as Taiwan, have large state-owned sectors.

(3) The private sector is expanding constantly.

(4) The former USSR still have about 35% state ownership. Is it capitalist?

(5) The percentage of state-owned industry is actually below 35%.

(6) When are you going to get over this shit that China is somehow progressive?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

For the record (SOE=state-owned enterprise):


In 1995, ownership reform was significantly accelerated when the central government decided to retain the ownership of between 500 to 1000 large-scale SOEs and to allow smaller SOEs to be leased or sold (zhuada fangxiao). In 1997, the 500 largest state firms held 37 percent of the state’s industrial assets, contributed 46 percent of all tax revenue from the state sector, and generated 63 percent of the state sector’s profits. By 1998, a national survey showed that one quarter of China’s 87,000 industrial SOEs had restructured and another quarter planned to restructure in some way. Among the restructured firms, 60-70 percent had been partially or fully privatized. By the end of 2001, 86 percent of all SOEs had been restructured and about 70 percent had been partially or fully privatized. The number of SOEs fell from 64,737 in 1998 to 27,477 in 2005. At the same time, industrial output increased (Statistics: Number of SOEs and industry output 1998-2005).


As the public sector shrunk, the private sector expanded. The number of private enterprises increased from 440,000 in 1996 to 1.32 million in 2001, 16.9 percent of all enterprises to 43.7 percent. The public sector’s share of all industrial output dropped from 73.4% to only 11.1% between 1983 and 2003 (Statistics: Percentage of SOEs in all industry output 1983-2003).

SOE reform improved economic performance, but it also created serious social problems. From 1998 to 2004, six in ten SOE workers were laid off. The proportion of SOEs employees in all employment also dropped from 16 percent in 1994 to eight percent in 2005 (Statistics: Percentage of SOE workers in all employment). Based on Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MOLSS) figures, 21 million workers were laid-off from SOEs between1994 and 2005 (Statistics: Yearly increase of laid-off workers), and when laid off workers from collective enterprises were included in the calculations, the total number increased to 30 million laid-off between 1998 and 2004.

Although the most intensive phase of SOE reform has passed, reforms designed to improve economic performance continue. In 2006, the State Council’s Development and Reform Commission estimated that in the next three years, a further 3.6 million SOE employees would be laid off and another 3 million employees would be redeployed amidst the restructuring of subsidiary businesses.(FNs removed; emph added)

http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100153#part1_3

RED DAVE

[KC]

Posted this on another forum:



The share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and state-invested enterprises (SIEs) in the national industrial value-added, which was as high as 72 per cent in 1998, came down to 47.8 per cent in 2003 and further to 45 per cent in 2005. The share of pure private domestic and foreign enterprises (not including collectively-owned ones) was about 50 per cent in 2003. In the marketplaces, the controlled economy now accounts for only 3 per cent of the retail market, down from about 98 per cent in 1978.
-Bhaumik, T.K. Old China's New Economy: The Conquest By A Billion Paupers, p.117

Keep in mind that these numbers stop at 2005; since then there has been even further privatisation.

It should also be noted that the SOEs are mostly located in the primary sector, and in particular industries that are crucial to the country (natural resources is a big one, for example). The primary sector has also recently been steadily declining since the 80's (in terms of % share of GDP), with the tertiary sector increasing at pretty much the same rate. This is, of course, due to the massive inflow of foreign capital and the transformation of China into "the world's workshop".

SOEs are also run basically in the same way as private enterprises, with the only real difference being their source of capital investment. I unfortunately do not currently have much information on this right now, though, but this is unnecessary, as it is a secondary point. I think the claim that "China's economy is all state run" has been completely disproven.

Measuring by proportion employed in State Enterprises to public enterprises is a fallacious way of comparison. The fact is that the private sector is the largest proportion of GDP. Saying that the state sector employs more personnel just tells us that the work in the state sector is more labour-intensive and relies less on constant capital. Which makes sense, as primary sector jobs (mining, for example) are generally more labour intensive.

So to claim that this is somehow evidence of China's "socialist cred" is absolutely silly. It's sort of like saying Cuba's socialist because of its literacy rate. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Fine I'll respond directly.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1902612#post1902612) No. Capitalism as a whole is NOT back into China. Take a look at these employment statistics from 2006,

http://www.freewebs.com/technoclown/...entFigures.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.freewebs.com/technoclown/EmploymentFigures.htm)

58%, 221 million Chinese workers either work in a State, Collective, or Joint owned workplace. Meanwhile, 28%, 107 million Chinese workers work in a privately owned workplace. Central planning is still the main mode of operation within the economy.

Aside from the fact that we have already proven that "Central Planning" (which is curiously used interchangeably here with SOE's) is not the "main mode of operation within the economy," there's an issue with the statistic itself being, well, wrong.

You're citing a freeweb website that doesn't offer up any citations. Also, it doesn't even offer up a year (I found it by going to the main page - 2006). Here's info for 2007 that is cited back to a study done by the chief of the State Statistics Bureau:


According to a study by Li Chengshui, chief of the State Statistics Bureau (SSB) in 1981-84, that was made public on October 12 [2007], last year the public sector employed only 32% of China's industrial and service workers, and accounted for 37% of the country's GDP. This represents a huge change from just over a decade ago. In 1995 the public sector accounted for 78% of GDP.

Source (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/38744)In other words, your source is completely wrong, and according to the SSB the public sector "employed 32% of China's industrial and service workers" in 2006. What makes this even more embarrassing to you is that the "public sector" in this report comprises both the state and the cooperative sectors, which means that the state sector is even smaller than this figure!

I could quote the whole article, which really destroys this idea that China is somehow "socialist" or whatever lunatic idea you're trying to put forward, but I think this is most relevant:


In 2000, private capital accounted for 55% of China's GDP (of which 42.4% was attributed to domestic minying enterprises and 12.6% to foreign capital). IN 2005, private capital accounted for 65% of GDP (of which 49.7% was attributed to domestic minying enterprises and 15-16% to foreign owned enterprises). Over this five-year period, private capital grew by 10 percentage points, or at two percentage points per annum.


From the 2005 private sector figures, Li took out the share of collective enterprises (estimated at eight percentage points of the GDP) and added in the share of private capital in the partially privatised state enterprises (estimated at four percentage points of GDP). This produced an adjusted private sector weight of 61% of GDP in 2005.


Based on the 2000-05 average growth pattern, Li projected that the private sector accounted for 63% of GDP in 2006.
The declining weight of state enterprises in China's economy is especially pronounced in industry. Quoting 2006 official figures, Li noted that the state share of industrial production declined from 25.5% in 1997 to 15.3% in 2004.Also, this is from 2005:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2qt9wkl.jpg

In other words, as Foreign Direct Investment has increased in China, the state sector has shrunk in comparison:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2214rb.jpg

And this is from 2005.

[KC]

BTW, I am actually interested in hearing the FRSO/PSL/WWP response to this.

[RED DAVE]

BTW, I am actually interested in hearing the FRSO/PSL/WWP response to this.Don't hold your breath.

RED DAVE