Chinese dissident's Nobel prize for capitalism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21467

Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has been hailed as a champion of human rights and democracy. His jailing by Chinese authorities for inciting subversion of the state is widely regarded as an unjust stifling of advocacy rights by a Chinese state intolerant of dissent and hostile to ”universal values”. But what Western accounts have failed to mention is that Charter 08, the manifesto Liu had a hand in writing and whose signing led to his arrest, is more than a demand for political and civil liberties. It is a blueprint for making over China into a replica of US society and eliminating the last vestiges of the country’s socialism. If Liu had his druthers, China would: become a free market, free enterprise paradise; welcome domination by foreign banks; hold taxes to a minimum; and allow the Chinese version of the Democrats and Republicans to keep the country safe for corporations, bankers and wealthy investors. Liu’s problem with the Communist Party isn’t that it has travelled the capitalist road, but that it hasn’t traveled it far enough, and has failed to put in place a politically pluralist republican system to facilitate the smooth and efficient operation of an unrestrained capitalist economy.

Liu taught literature at Columbia University as a visiting scholar, but decamped for his homeland in 1989 to participate in the Tiananmen Square protests, bringing with him the pro-imperialist values he imbibed in the United States. For his role in the protests—which ultimately aimed at toppling Communist Party-rule and promoting a US-style economic and political system–he served two years in prison.

Liu is committed to a pluralist political model and untrammelled capitalist system of the kind he witnessed firsthand in the United States. Charter 08, the Nobel committee, the US government, and the Western media have all anointed free markets, free enterprise, and multi-party representative democracy as “universal values”. The aim is to discredit any system that is at variance with capitalist democracy as being against universal values and therefore doomed to failure.

Liu served more jail time in the 1990s for advocating an end to Communist Party-rule and conciliation of the CIA-backed Dalai Lama, the once head of a feudal aristocracy who owned slaves and lived a sumptuous life on the backs of Tibetan serfs, before the People’s Army put an end to his oppressive rule.

Liu’s latest run-in with Chinese authorities happened in December, 2008 after he signed Charter 08, a manifesto he helped draft. The charter was published on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms (UDHRF) and is a reference to Charter 77, an anti-communist manifesto issued by dissidents in Czechoslovakia. While the UDHRF endorses economic rights (the right to work and to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control), the only economic rights Charter 08 endorses are bourgeois privileges. In that respect, it is hardly in the same class as the UDHRF and, significantly, is emblematic of the kind of truncated human rights protocol favored in the United States.

On June 24 of last year Liu was charged with agitation aimed at subversion of the Chinese government and overthrowing the socialist system. He was convicted and is now serving an 11-year sentence.

The Western press describes Charter 08 as a “manifesto calling for political reform, human rights and an end to one-party rule”, but it is more than that. It is a manifesto for the untrammelled operation of capitalism in China.

The charter calls for a free and open market economy, protection of the freedom of entrepreneurship, land privatization, and the protection of property rights. Property rights, under the charter’s terms, refer not to the right to own a house or a car of a toothbrush for personal use but to the freedom of individuals to legally claim the economic surplus produced by farmers and wage laborers—that is, the right, through the private ownership of capital, to exploit the labor of others through profits, interest and rents.

continued in the link above

[RedStarOverChina]

Moreover, he once openly stated that he believes Chinese should and needs to be colonized for 300 years because it would bring China "democracy", seeing that it has done so in Hong Kong.

And the West is wondering why he isn't a popular beacon of hope for the people in China!

[pranabjyoti]

This bustard should be jailed for his whole life who wants centuries of colonization of his own country. WHAT A MAN TO CHOOSE FOR PEACE! IN MY OPINION, FIRING SQUAD IS A MERCY FOR HIM.
Though the act of Nobel committee doesn't surprise me (or anybody who is well acquainted with history of Nobel, basically Nobel peace and Nobel literary award) at all.

[Crux]

This bustard should be jailed for his whole life who wants centuries of colonization of his own country. WHAT A MAN TO CHOOSE FOR PEACE! IN MY OPINION, FIRING SQUAD IS A MERCY FOR HIM.
Though the act of Nobel committee doesn't surprise me (or anybody who is well acquainted with history of Nobel, basically Nobel peace and Nobel literary award) at all.
Telle me do you support the chinese state against all dissenters you disagree with or just those you find un-patriotic? And yeah Liu is a middle class right wing neoliberal. Does not mean I support any political sentences handed out by the regime.

[EvilRedGuy]

Western Bastard Awards.

[Crux]

Western Bastard Awards.
They can always give it to Kissinger again.

[pranabjyoti]

Telle me do you support the chinese state against all dissenters you disagree with or just those you find un-patriotic? And yeah Liu is a middle class right wing neoliberal. Does not mean I support any political sentences handed out by the regime.
Certainly not. I am always demanding the release of Chinese Maoists and other revolutionaries, who are now in jail. But, as Liu and they are in jail, doesn't make them basically equal JUST AS THEY ALL OPPRESSED BY THE CHINESE REGIME. But, that is certainly not applicable anyhow to Bustards like Liu.

[Widerstand]

I oppose all efforts of the Chinese to move from state capitalism to democratic capitalism. State capitalism has a higher probability of revolution. Sadly they might want capitalism, because they might mistake their current situation for communism. What's that Sparts? China is a degenerate workers state? Yeah right.

[Crux]

Certainly not. I am always demanding the release of Chinese Maoists and other revolutionaries, who are now in jail. But, as Liu and they are in jail, doesn't make them basically equal JUST AS THEY ALL OPPRESSED BY THE CHINESE REGIME. But, that is certainly not applicable anyhow to Bustards like Liu.
No, it does not make them equal, far from it. Liu's policy's are not that dissimlar from well large parts of the regime, the difference is the democratic demands. That's why he was out of line. I mean, look around, the regime hardly minds foreign companies exploiting the chinese working class in sweatshops. Their "patriotism" is as false as their "communism".
And of course Liu was chosen by the Nobel committee for geopolitical reasons,although they prefer to present him as just a human rights defender. He represents no way forward. But what is your rationale for defending the regime lock him up for democratic demands, rather than the neo-liberalism they have in common? Can you give a justification that's not just affect? The keyword is "oppressed by the regime" and the "why". Liu certainly represents nothing progressive.

In the end he is not that important. But given the attention he has gotten, how can you defend the regime oppressing him for democratic demands?

[pranabjyoti]

No, it does not make them equal, far from it. Liu's policy's are not that dissimlar from well large parts of the regime, the difference is the democratic demands. That's why he was out of line. I mean, look around, the regime hardly minds foreign companies exploiting the chinese working class in sweatshops. Their "patriotism" is as false as their "communism".
And of course Liu was chosen by the Nobel committee for geopolitical reasons,although they prefer to present him as just a human rights defender. He represents no way forward. But what is your rationale for defending the regime lock him up for democratic demands, rather than the neo-liberalism they have in common? Can you give a justification that's not just affect? The keyword is "oppressed by the regime" and the "why". Liu certainly represents nothing progressive.

In the end he is not that important. But given the attention he has gotten, how can you defend the regime oppressing him for democratic demands?
I am just curious to know what kind of democratic demand a man like Liu can put forward who think colonization of his country is better for it.

[Kisiel]

I oppose all efforts of the Chinese to move from state capitalism to democratic capitalism. State capitalism has a higher probability of revolution. Sadly they might want capitalism, because they might mistake their current situation for communism. What's that Sparts? China is a degenerate workers state? Yeah right.

I had a major argue on the topic with some comrades, sadly most of them think China is a degenerate workers state.:(

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, it does not make them equal, far from it. Liu's policy's are not that dissimlar from well large parts of the regime, the difference is the democratic demands. That's why he was out of line. I mean, look around, the regime hardly minds foreign companies exploiting the chinese working class in sweatshops. Their "patriotism" is as false as their "communism".
And of course Liu was chosen by the Nobel committee for geopolitical reasons,although they prefer to present him as just a human rights defender. He represents no way forward. But what is your rationale for defending the regime lock him up for democratic demands, rather than the neo-liberalism they have in common? Can you give a justification that's not just affect? The keyword is "oppressed by the regime" and the "why". Liu certainly represents nothing progressive.

In the end he is not that important. But given the attention he has gotten, how can you defend the regime oppressing him for democratic demands?

your inability to discern between china's capitalist economic policies and neoliberalism is laughable.
did you read the fucking article?

[Crux]

your inability to discern between china's capitalist economic policies and neoliberalism is laughable.
did you read the fucking article?
Yes, and it's self-delusion to believe the CCP-regime stand in opposition to even further privatizations and that this would be their reasons for locking him up. It is not. The threat of the right of organization and even limited bourgeois democracy is what scares them, because it threatens their privileges. But I oppose the 08 Charter, because it will not and cannot bring about any kind of democratic change. Yet I oppose the capitalist regime in china imprisoning dissidents guilty of thought-crimes. That too complicated for you?

"Carrying out all the charter demands would almost certainly result in China being sucked into the US imperialist orbit, and whatever chances the country has of achieving socialism, would be forever dashed."

"Instead, it is Beijing’s action to preserve its freedom and independence from outside domination, and to maintain elements of a socialist economy, that deserve our support."

Is the author a PSL:er? In any case this reflects their ridiculous position on china and here he act as defendants of one of the most brutal capitalist regimes in the world, seemingly believeing they are the only ones capable to bring China to socialism, under the guise of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. Hypocrisy is not even a strong enough word for it.

Of course the article also fails to mention that the regime also imprisons left wing activists let me quote from the chinaworker article (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1217/?ls-art0=15) on Liu Xiaobo receiving the nobel prize:


China’s jails and ‘re-education camps’ are full of political prisoners whose beliefs have led them to fall foul of the one-party dictatorship. Repression is worse today than at any time for more than a decade. As veteran China reporter, John Pomfret, points out in the Washington Post (8 October): “Although China outwardly appears strong, with a world-beating economic growth rate, prosecutions for “state security” offences are approaching numbers not seen since the bloody crackdown on student-led protests around Tiananmen Square in 1989.”

Increasingly, the attention of the state security apparatus has fallen on the emerging left in China: socialists, Maoists and anti-capitalists. Recently, a lawyer who sympathises with Maoism, Zhao Dongming, was prosecuted for helping several hundred migrant workers in Shanxi province organise a union to fight for their rights. His case has not attracted any publicity in the world media.

Liu Xiaobo does not rank among these, being firmly anchored on the right of the political spectrum. He is a pro-US liberal, whose ‘Charter 08’ manifesto not only champions democratic rights that socialists would fully endorse, but also calls for more rapid privatisation and other “free market” i.e. capitalist measures. This is no way conditions our support for his release from detention. While we do not subscribe to Liu’s political ideas, which we believe represent a political dead-end for workers and the poor, we defend his right to express and campaign for these ideas.

It is paradoxical that Liu Xiaobo, who Pomfret describes as part of the “loyal opposition” to the ruling Communist Party, has now become a major diplomatic and political problem for the regime. Rather than a call for revolutionary change, Charter 08, for which Liu was jailed, is crafted in the form of advice to the regime on how to ‘reform’ itself.

And of course the original article fail to mention the massive protests and strikes (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1243/) that have taken place, against land grabs (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1244/), for union's rights and wages both in the private and state owned industry, for worker's rights to chose their own union leaders and organize themselves, against the regime's corruption and oppression.

But then again the original article writer's purpose is obviously to act as the useful idiot and "critical" supporter of the CCP-regime.

[Crux]

I just read the article again and a couple questions were raised (I am not going to ask whetever he has recieved a pay-check from the chinese embassy, I know full well that there are people who write stuff like this for free):

"While capitalism thrives in China, it does not thrive unchecked and without some oversight and direction by the Communist Party. Nor is China’s economy entirely privately owned. Many enterprises remain in state hands. The drafters of Charter 08 have in mind the elimination of all state ownership and industrial planning–in other words, the purging of the remaining socialist elements of the Chinese economy. At the same time, the Communist Party as the one mass organization with a programmatic commitment to socialism (if only to be realized in full in a distant future) and which zealously preserves China’s freedom to operate outside the US imperialist orbit, would be required to surrender its lead role in Chinese society. Political power would pass to parties that would inevitably come to be dominated by the Chinese bourgeoisie through its money power. (1) Rather than being a country with a mix of socialist and capitalist characteristics presided over by the Communist Party, it would become a thoroughly capitalist society with bankers and captains of industry firmly in control, their rule governed by the need to enrich their class, not make progress toward a distant socialism by raising standards of living and expanding the country’s productive base."
This "zealous" preservation of "China's freedom" is this the reason why China today is one of the U.S main trading partners? And you have no problem with a "slow progress towards a distant socialism"(where does he see this progress I wonder? Or is it so slow that it cannot be perceived?) and in the meantime acting as an apologist for the regime?


"A further double standard is evident in the condemnation of China’s crackdown on anti-communist dissent—one of the goals of awarding Liu the Nobel Prize (the others: to legitimize Charter 08 and demonize Communist Party-rule in China.)"
It hardly needs to be demonized.

"The reality is that any revolutionary society, if it is to successfully defend itself against counter-revolution, must limit the rights that would be used to organize the revolution’s reversal. To place political and civil liberties ahead of the preservation of the revolution, where the revolution is aimed at improving the economic condition of Chinese peasants and workers, would be to declare political rights to be senior to economic rights."
So in a country with thriving capitalism, that he believes the CCP is "slowly moving towards a distant socialism" (which is of course false, they are moving in the opposite direction) he also sees a revolutionary society?

"Liu has clearly worked toward a counter-revolution that would push economic rights to the margins and bring the rights of the owners of capital to organize society exclusively in their interests to the fore. Allowing Liu to freely organize the overthrow of the current system and to replace it with one modelled on the US political and economic system would be to set political liberties above goals of achieving independence from imperialist domination and building the material basis of a communist society."
I am sure Liu if out of his prison cell would single-handedly topple the regime. :rolleyes: He and his likes are the regimes "loyal opposition" and advisors.
The material basis for communism is a china under CCP rule, with no political freedoms or labor rights and the CCP will lead the way to a "distant socialism"? Stop hitting that pipe, bro.

[Weezer]

I oppose all efforts of the Chinese to move from state capitalism to democratic capitalism. State capitalism has a higher probability of revolution. Sadly they might want capitalism, because they might mistake their current situation for communism. What's that Sparts? China is a degenerate workers state? Yeah right.

I don't know much about the Sparts, but in defense of the degenerated worker's state theory, I don't think it that term applies to China anymore. It's fair game to that they've restored capitalism. The bureaucracy doesn't control the majority of the economy anymore.

[PolishTrotsky]

Western Bastard Awards.
In other words, the US General Elections!
No, I'm serious