Mao - Allying with the 'National Bourgiousie'

[Ned Kelly]

As Maoists and many others would know, Mao espoused the need to ally with the sector of capitalists he called the 'national bourgeoisie' in order to ferment the initial 'new democratic' revolution. While this was indeed a necessary course of action in third world China in order to get rid of the imperialist influence, and their agents within China, I'm not so sure this would be necessary in a 2nd world nation like Australia, the local Maoists have always espoused this as a necessary measure, but I think they are mistaken, and that co-operation in the form of a united front with small business owners 'Milk Bars, Fish and Chip shops etc', and small farmers is absolutely required, but the dogmatic insistence that we must also ally with a section of the local capitalists is absolutely not required, not going to happen and antagonistic to our goals.

I'd like some thoughts from Maoists, and anyone else as to their thoughts on such an alliance in a 2nd world nation such as Australia.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Nah, it's only 3rd world countries that require the New Democratic period. A nation like Australia wouldn't need it unless it was completely devastated in a war or something

[Ned Kelly]

That's what I'm thinking. The local party, who I'm in the process of joining has the idea that this would be necessary in Australia, and see the national bourgeoisie as a force to be allied with the people and I simply don't agree.

[Obs]

I'd advise taking it up with the party leadership after being a member for some time, the length of which depends entirely on how open the dialogue within the party is.

[Ned Kelly]

Everything seems fairly geared towards democratic centralism, criticism and such, so I think that might be a good path to take

[The Douche]

Australia is a second-world nation now?

[Ned Kelly]

We're under the thumb of U.S led imperialism, so yes.

[bailey_187]

We're under the thumb of U.S led imperialism, so yes.

Australia may be following the lead of US Imperialism, as much of Western Europe is, but why would that require any sort of "National Liberation"?

[Ned Kelly]

Because most business interests within Australia are tied up with the U.S, U.S foreign policy as a result dictates what our government does. Due to U.S enforced 'free-trade', our local farming industry has been decimated. It's clear that all facets of Australian society are permeated by U.S imperialism

[Omi]

The distinction between first, second, and third world nations arose during the Cold war as a way to describe alliances in world politics. The first world were those countries belonging to the NATO, the second world aligned to the Soviet Union or China, and the third world countries those countries that were non-aligned to either.

The claim that Australia is a second world country is pretty ludicrous seen in this light, whether they are "under the thumb of U.S led imperialism" or not.

To go even further, Australia is a part of NATO itself, and thus part of US led imperialism. They are a part of the imperialism, not it's victim. Although one could argue that the working class within an imperialist nation is oppressed as well (which it of course is!) it doesn't mean they are subject to US imperialism.

[Ned Kelly]

I'm talking Mao's three worlds theory

[Ned Kelly]

The distinction between first, second, and third world nations arose during the Cold war as a way to describe alliances in world politics. The first world were those countries belonging to the NATO, the second world aligned to the Soviet Union or China, and the third world countries those countries that were non-aligned to either.

The claim that Australia is a second world country is pretty ludicrous seen in this light, whether they are "under the thumb of U.S led imperialism" or not.

To go even further, Australia is a part of NATO itself, and thus part of US led imperialism. They are a part of the imperialism, not it's victim. Although one could argue that the working class within an imperialist nation is oppressed as well (which it of course is!) it doesn't mean they are subject to US imperialism.

Why do you think we're a part of NATO? We need to appease to U.S, that's how tied up we are with them. We were once dominated by Britain, that mantle passed after WW2 to the Yanks.

[Fabrizio]

Because most business interests within Australia are tied up with the U.S, U.S foreign policy as a result dictates what our government does. Due to U.S enforced 'free-trade', our local farming industry has been decimated.

And the US manufacturing industry has been decimated by free trade policies pursued by its own government.

To be honest I always understood "First World" to mean a developed country, "2nd world" to mean a communist/post-communist country (at least in the case of Eastern Europe), and 3rd World to mean an underdeveloped country.

I had never heard Australia called 2nd world before, I would think because of its level of development, it would be considered First World. This is relevant because in a country where full capitalist development has not been possible, you would pursue very different policies to a country like Australia.

[Ned Kelly]

The U.S wheat farming industry remains strong due to hypocritical subsidies handed out to local farmers which actually contravene the rules of their precious WTO, whilst leaving Australian grain farmers to go poor.

[Fabrizio]

The U.S wheat farming industry remains strong due to hypocritical subsidies handed out to local farmers which actually contravene the rules of their precious WTO, whilst leaving Australian grain farmers to go poor.

A lot of people in Britain would say that British farmers are punished by EU trade policies too.

I'm not disputing what you are saying, but is it decisive? Overall has Australia been deprived of attaining full capitalist development by US imperialism?

[bailey_187]

I'm talking Mao's three worlds theory

A completly useless theory even according to most Maoists.

Face it, you're an Austrialian nationlist who needs to try and portray Australia as some kind of "oppressed" nation to justify your reactionary politics.

[Ned Kelly]

It has destroyed our agricultural sector.
I guess it hasn't stopped Australia achieving 'full capitalist development'
But it has tied us to it's imperialist agenda, we don't really have a choice as to whether to support its imperialist agenda or not, as if the U.S pulled out investment, we'd be decimated. That's what I mean by under the thumb

[Ned Kelly]

A completly useless theory even according to most Maoists.

Face it, you're an Austrialian nationlist who needs to try and portray Australia as some kind of "oppressed" nation to justify your reactionary politics.
I'm an anti-US imperialist

[bailey_187]

What about Australian imperialism?

[Ned Kelly]

You're right, no doubt the actions of the Australian government are of an imperialist nature, but that's due to it's need to appease the U.S, that's why all in power are essentially U.S arsekissers.

[Wanted Man]

The distinction between first, second, and third world nations arose during the Cold war as a way to describe alliances in world politics. The first world were those countries belonging to the NATO, the second world aligned to the Soviet Union or China, and the third world countries those countries that were non-aligned to either.

That's a different thing. What people are discussing here is the Maoist Three Worlds Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory), not the "three worlds" division that was common in the Cold War (and still is, but with the "second world" cut out). It's a bit confusing to be fair.

I don't see how Australia is any more a victim of US imperialism than Holland, Belgium, Denmark, etc. Which of course are all imperialist nations of their own, not victims of imperialism. People who think Australia is an oppressed nation should read up a bit IMO.

[The Douche]

Australia is totally a 2nd world nation, the victim of US imperialism, just ask the native community, the vietnamese, the iraqis, and the afghans.

[Ned Kelly]

Australia is totally a 2nd world nation, the victim of US imperialism, just ask the native community, the vietnamese, the iraqis, and the afghans.
That's what I'm decrying, the fact that we partake in these horrible actions.
And as an indigenous Australian, I think I'd know the effect that British imperialism, and the modern day U.S imperialism has had on my people.

[The Douche]

That's what I'm decrying, the fact that we partake in these horrible actions.
And as an indigenous Australian, I think I'd know the effect that British imperialism, and the modern day U.S imperialism has had on my people.

Yet you absolve the Australian nation of any responsibility for its imperialist actions...

[Ned Kelly]

It's enforced upon Australia by the fact that if U.S investment was pulled, the country would collapse. That's why Australia toes the U.S line.

[Crimson Commissar]

Nah, it's only 3rd world countries that require the New Democratic period. A nation like Australia wouldn't need it unless it was completely devastated in a war or something
NO country requires this bullshit. All capitalists are our enemies, every last fucking one. Just because there's some imperialist country pissing all over the people of some third world country, doesn't make it right for us to promote co-operation with capitalists.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

NO country requires this bullshit. All capitalists are our enemies, every last fucking one. Just because there's some imperialist country pissing all over the people of some third world country, doesn't make it right for us to promote co-operation with capitalists.

Of course all capitalists are enemies. It's just that in countries under the yoke of imperialism, the patriotic bourgeoisie can sometimes play a progressive role to some extent for some time so you might as well milk that for all its worth as way to build a better base for the building of socialism. They will inevitably join with the side of reaction at some point though and that's when they'll go the way of the rest of the bourgeoisie

[Crimson Commissar]

Of course all capitalists are enemies. It's just that in countries under the yoke of imperialism, the patriotic bourgeoisie can sometimes play a progressive role to some extent for some time so you might as well milk that for all its worth as way to build a better base for the building of socialism. They will inevitably join with the side of reaction at some point though and that's when they'll go the way of the rest of the bourgeoisie
How exactly are nationalists and capitalists able to be progressive? Any national liberation struggle which isn't also openly anti-capitalist is not one we should be concerned with. If we co-operate with capitalists, these countries are going to be in just as much shit as they were before, only it'll be local capitalists exploiting the people, not foreign ones.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

How exactly are nationalists and capitalists able to be progressive? Any national liberation struggle which isn't also openly anti-capitalist is not one we should be concerned with. If we co-operate with capitalists, these countries are going to be in just as much shit as they were before, only it'll be local capitalists exploiting the people, not foreign ones.
The People's Republic of China had a New Democratic period yet it progressed toward socialism, rather than staying as it had been before. And as for how national liberation struggles can be progressive even if they aren't explicitly anti-capitalist, I think comrade Stalin said it best:

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

[Crimson Commissar]

So Stalin said that we should co-operate with nationalistic capitalists, so what? If a revolution is not a socialist revolution, we should have nothing to do with it. Our goal is to create a socialist world and nothing less. Capitalists, nationalists, and whatever other reactionary ideologies there are, are all our enemies and must be destroyed in our struggle for world socialism. We will never get fucking anything done if we start supporting this reactionary bullshit.

[Dimentio]

Australia is totally a 2nd world nation, the victim of US imperialism, just ask the native community, the vietnamese, the iraqis, and the afghans.

With all due respect, third world nations also have oppressed minorities. Just look at Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (but that's a first world nation anyway).

[Marxach-Léinínach]

So Stalin said that we should co-operate with nationalistic capitalists, so what? If a revolution is not a socialist revolution, we should have nothing to do with it. Our goal is to create a socialist world and nothing less. Capitalists, nationalists, and whatever other reactionary ideologies there are, are all our enemies and must be destroyed in our struggle for world socialism. We will never get fucking anything done if we start supporting this reactionary bullshit.

Itll be nice when every country in the world can have a completely socialist revolution but unfortunately that ain't gonna happen for a long time and until then any kind of revolution that weakens imperialism is worth supporting

[Omi]

The kinds of revolutions you seem to want to support did not weaken imperialism in any way, or even became an imperialist power itself.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The kinds of revolutions you seem to want to support did not weaken imperialism in any way, or even became an imperialist power itself.

Example?

[The Douche]

With all due respect, third world nations also have oppressed minorities. Just look at Sudan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (but that's a first world nation anyway).

What does that have to do with Australia being a NATO member, and participating in the invasions of vietnam, afghanistan, and iraq?

The OP believe Australia needs an anti-imperialist struggle to rid itself of American imperialism. He is an australian patriot, and seems like he might be dangerously close to some weird national-maoist position to me.

[S.Artesian]

It has destroyed our agricultural sector.
I guess it hasn't stopped Australia achieving 'full capitalist development'
But it has tied us to it's imperialist agenda, we don't really have a choice as to whether to support its imperialist agenda or not, as if the U.S pulled out investment, we'd be decimated. That's what I mean by under the thumb


You obviously know nothing about your own country. First, agricultur is only 3% of your GDP; imports amount to only 6.2% of your total imports; agricultural exports amount to more than 15% of total exports. The US is number 3 on the list of import sources into Australia, behind the EU and China.

Australia's major exports are mining products-- the main corporations of which the US has small positions in.

As for your agricultural sector being "devastated," agricultural imports as a percentage of total world imports in Australia are below the amounts imported in Japan, China, Canada, Turkey, Taiwan, etc.

This information is readily available on the WTO website.

As for wheat-- Australia imports very little wheat-- wheat isn't even among the top 20 agricultural imports as measured by either quantity or value. Australia imports more pet food than it does wheat

You might stop wasting your time reading Mao and actually try learning something about the real makeup of the Australian economy.

[S.Artesian]

Example?

China.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

China.

For all the tremendous problems and betrayals of socialism of Dengist China, I don't think they're quite 'imperialist' at present

[S.Artesian]

For all the tremendous problems and betrayals of socialism of Dengist China, I don't think they're quite 'imperialist' at present


What you think doesn't matter. What China does, does matter. It exports capital; it imports surplus value.

You might ask the miners in Zambia how they feel about China and whether it's imperialist. What they think really does matter.

Anyway, the issue is Australia.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

What you think doesn't matter. What China does, does matter. It exports capital; it imports surplus value.

You might ask the miners in Zambia how they feel about China and whether it's imperialist. What they think really does matter.

Anyway, the issue is Australia.

Well then maybe I was wrong and China is imperialist. In any case, you don't think that China should've remained under the yoke of imperialism do you?

[Omi]

Well then maybe I was wrong and China is imperialist. In any case, you don't think that China should've remained under the yoke of imperialism do you?

No, it should have had an anti capitalist liberation. It's not like there's only two options, don't try and present it that way.

But indeed, this isn't about China or that particular part of Maoism. It's about what Australia can be seen as in an anti-capitalist perspective. And it certainly ain't a nation opressed by imperialism more than 'nations' such as the US, Canada, the EU nations, etc.

[Fabrizio]

You might ask the miners in Zambia how they feel about China and whether it's imperialist. What they think really does matter.



Interesting. In that case maybe you could find me one example of a Zambian miner saying "China is imperialist because it exports capital and imports surplus value".

[Marxach-Léinínach]

No, it should have had an anti capitalist liberation.

It did.

[Dimentio]

What does that have to do with Australia being a NATO member, and participating in the invasions of vietnam, afghanistan, and iraq?

The OP believe Australia needs an anti-imperialist struggle to rid itself of American imperialism. He is an australian patriot, and seems like he might be dangerously close to some weird national-maoist position to me.

Rwanda has also participated in the invasion of Iraq.

The old dichotomy between the first and the third world is slowly eroding. It is highly probable that living standards will drop in first world nations, while India, China, Brazil and South Africa could become imperialist powers themselves, preying upon smaller third world countries.

[Omi]

It did.

Then we disagree. No problem.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I don't see what the problem is. China had an anti-capitalist national liberation yet it was usurped by revisionists, has seen capitalism mostly restored, and is a semi-imperialist power now. Ergo, I don't see why national liberation struggles that aren't explicitly anti-capitalist should be opposed on the basis that they might become imperialist, when just that happened to China even though it did have a socialist national liberation. What is there to disagree with?

[The Douche]

Rwanda has also participated in the invasion of Iraq.

The old dichotomy between the first and the third world is slowly eroding. It is highly probable that living standards will drop in first world nations, while India, China, Brazil and South Africa could become imperialist powers themselves, preying upon smaller third world countries.

Cool, add yourself to the list of people who think Australia is a 2nd world nation in need of a national-liberation struggle against US imperialism.:laugh:

[S.Artesian]

Interesting. In that case maybe you could find me one example of a Zambian miner saying "China is imperialist because it exports capital and imports surplus value".

Maybe, maybe not, but I can find you examples where miners in Zambia were shot by Chinese managers while protesting against unsafe working conditions in mines owned by China.

[Dimentio]

Cool, add yourself to the list of people who think Australia is a 2nd world nation in need of a national-liberation struggle against US imperialism.:laugh:

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either one of you. Personally, I think that the concepts you uphold are based on scripture rather than a dynamic analysis of things. FuckRevision's interpretation has as much air as your interpretation of things.

[S.Artesian]

No, I don't think China should have remained tethered to imperialism. But in order to prevent that yoke from being refashioned as the yoke of "globalization," of special enterprise zones, of internationally supported "national" capitalism, the revolution needed to break with the bourgeoisie, national, patriotic or otherwise, from the getgo.

This baloney about "new democracy" lasted for what? 30 years before it morphed into 4 reforms, and the "low wage, high foreign investment" strategy-- hardly a record that warrants its endorsement.

[The Douche]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either one of you. Personally, I think that the concepts you uphold are based on scripture rather than a dynamic analysis of things. FuckRevision's interpretation has as much air as your interpretation of things.

Australia actively participates in imperialism, has a fully developed capitalist mode of production, is a member of NATO, and has been doing all of the above for quite some time.

Calling a spade a spade /= dogmatism.

[Obs]

Australia actively participates in imperialism, has a fully developed capitalist mode of production, is a member of NATO, and has been doing all of the above for quite some time.

Calling a spade a spade /= dogmatism.
Australia is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation now?

[S.Artesian]

New Democracy is a transitory time predicating socialism in the underdeveloped third world, where the order of the day is achieving independence and destroying the remnants of feudalism. As many comrades have already suggested, Australia's level of development negates the need for new democracy, since capitalism has already achieved the status as the dominant mode of production, and the country's primary contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Mao argued for building an alliance between the proletariat, the peasantry, and the national bourgeoisie in order to defeat colonialism and revolutionize the relations of production. The closest example to a new democracy in the modern world is probably a country like Zimbabwe.


And that's worked out well, hasn't it?

I think we should make clear that there was exactly ZERO remnants of feudalism in Zimbabwe since there had never been feudalism in Zimbabwe.

Agriculture was/is conducted on a commercial basis for exchange not for subsistence or direct consumption.

Industrial production centered around wage-labor in mining.

I really don't buy the notion of "feudal remnants" dictating some sort of alliance with the bourgeoisie, as if those "national bourgeoisie" are not intimately connected with a) foreign capital b) those so-called "feudal remnants."

In fact I don't think we can characterize the relations of landed labor in "less developed" countries, no matter how "archaic," as feudal since those relations are all about commercial production for exchange, for the accumulation of value.

The landlords are not functioning like feudal lords in 13th century France or Italy, but rather like the hacendados, the hacienda owners in 20th century Mexico, with their haciendas being units of production for the world markets.

[S.Artesian]

Interesting. In that case maybe you could find me one example of a Zambian miner saying "China is imperialist because it exports capital and imports surplus value".

From the Wall Street Journal of October 8, 2010:

Eleven Zambian miners were shot at China' Collum Coal Mine by two Chinese supervisors as miners were protesting low wages and unsafe working conditions. The miners working for the Chinese companies are the lowest paid miners in Zambia. In 2008, Zambia closed underground operations at the mines due to seven fatal accidents.

The mines subsequently reopened with wage rates and working conditions still bringing protests from the mineworkers.
___________

Tell me again about national liberation, "anti-imperialism," "new democracies," the "progressive nature" of Chinese investment in less developed countries. Maybe I missed the part where it talks about shooting workers.

[The Douche]

Australia is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation now?

NATO-alligned. Happy now?

[gorillafuck]

That's what I'm decrying, the fact that we partake in these horrible actions.
Partaking in those actions =/= Being victim of those actions


Because most business interests within Australia are tied up with the U.S, U.S foreign policy as a result dictates what our government does. Due to U.S enforced 'free-trade', our local farming industry has been decimated. It's clear that all facets of Australian society are permeated by U.S imperialism
US policies also destroy local farming in the United States. If Australia rid itself of US influence, then Australian big businesses would decimate local farming.

This is like if someone from Israel was calling for a nationalist uprising against US. influence in Israel.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

No, I don't think China should have remained tethered to imperialism. But in order to prevent that yoke from being refashioned as the yoke of "globalization," of special enterprise zones, of internationally supported "national" capitalism, the revolution needed to break with the bourgeoisie, national, patriotic or otherwise, from the getgo.

This baloney about "new democracy" lasted for what? 30 years before it morphed into 4 reforms, and the "low wage, high foreign investment" strategy-- hardly a record that warrants its endorsement.

About 7 years actually. Socialist construction then went on for 20 years, although it was unfortunately hampered at a few points for various reasons which certainly made it easier for the revisionists after Mao's death, during which the Chinese people experienced unparalleled successes and improvements in their lives. Then after Mao's death you had the revisionist coup and the arrest of the Gang of Four, and in 1978 Deng began his reforms which unfortunately undid much of the progress of the Mao era.

[S.Artesian]

About 7 years actually. Socialist construction then went on for 20 years, although it was unfortunately hampered at a few points for various reasons which certainly made it easier for the revisionists after Mao's death, during which the Chinese people experienced unparalleled successes and improvements in their lives. Then after Mao's death you had the revisionist coup and the arrest of the Gang of Four, and in 1978 Deng began his reforms which unfortunately undid much of the progress of the Mao era.

I disagree with your notion of "socialist construction." Agriculture was fundamentally circumscribed by small plot, labor intensive farming; industrial productivity of labor was very low-- and the food security of the population was never on a rock-solid basis.

There certainly was improvement in access to medical care, education-- no argument there. This whole bit about a revisionist "coup" is a little tough to swallow if one wants to argue that prior to that there was socialist construction. Socialist construction by its very nature requires the full participation, authority, rule, and oversight of the working class as a class.

If there was a coup, reversing "socialist construction" then we should have seen something that looked like destruction of the organs of that class rule.

What we do see in 1989 is the mobilization of the CPC and the army against the demands of workers and students who are being profoundly and negatively affected by the changes in the economy; a mobilization by the CPC for the imposition of even greater incentives for the empowerment of a bourgeoisie through institutionalization of Milton Friedmaniac "economics."

But again, that isn't the point of this thread. The point is Australia, and how it is NOT oppressed by US imperialism, but a full partner in that imperialism, much like Canada, or the UK.

[Kléber]

About 7 years actually. Socialist construction then went on for 20 years, although it was unfortunately hampered at a few points for various reasons which certainly made it easier for the revisionists after Mao's death, during which the Chinese people experienced unparalleled successes and improvements in their lives.
Actually, most of the improvement in living standards was during the 1950's and mid-1960's, when Mao was supposedly blanketed by revisionists. During the "radical" periods you idealize, the GLF and GPCR, conditions for Chinese workers or farmers improved relatively little, while some areas of China went through horrific periods of famine and political chaos.

What I want to know is what the hell this collaboration with the Australian bourgeoisie would even look like? "We support the crackdown on refugees and indigenous communities, but we want Rudd back in power, he's like the new Left KMT! Kevin '11, wooo!!"

[Marxach-Léinínach]

If there was a coup, reversing "socialist construction" then we should have seen something that looked like destruction of the organs of that class rule.

That's because the PRC didn't achieve socialism. Prior to 1976 it was on the road toward socialism in accordance with Marxist-Leninist principles though, but after the coup this was reversed and it started heading towards state-capitalism, like the USSR did after Khrushchov's coup.

[S.Artesian]

Wait... here's more from 2006:

China's African embrace evokes memories of the old imperialism (http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/428542/jump) Author: John Reed, Financial Times
Dated: 28 Sep 2006
Today China - as an emerging economic colossus hungry for raw materials - is back in Zambia as a direct investor. Like past foreign patrons, the Chinese are taking no chances with their new prize. In July six workers at the Chinese-owned Chambishi mine were shot and wounded after rioting over wages...Labour relations [at the mine] have recently improved since the implementation of a new collective bargaining agreement...In April 2005 a massive and still unexplained blast levelled an explosives factory on the [same] premises, owned by China's NPC Mining Africa, killing 46 people...Chinese investors have also been criticised for deploying poorly-paid and under-equipped Zambians in dangerous jobs. In June Zambian authorities closed the Chinese-owned Collum Coal Mining Industries, based in southern Zambia. This followed reports that workers were being sent underground without protective clothing or boots.


(http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/428542/link_page_view)
Title: African resentment against China grows [Zambia]


Visit: African resentment against China grows [Zambia] (http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/510767/jump) Author: Reuters
Dated: 09 Aug 2006
When Chinese investors bought struggling copper producer Chambishi Mining Plc, miners in this Zambian town gave them a heroes’ welcome for averting its closure...Three years on, resentment is rising openly against the new owners, NFC Africa [part of China Non-ferrous Metal Industry’s Foreign Engineering & Construction Co. (NFC)], as workers complain about pay and conditions...Last month miners destroyed property at the mine in a violent protest during which Chinese managers opened fire, wounding five workers, according to miners and police...Tensions over labor practices are relatively new but spreading...Some of the more common complaints against Chinese firms include poor pay, lack of safety clothing or boots for workers in textiles, copper and coal mining industries...In 2004 the Zambian government asked Chinese managers at Zambia-China Mulungushi Textiles Ltd, in northern Kabwe, to stop locking in workers at the factory at night...And in June authorities shut down Collum Coal Mining Industries Ltd, in southern Zambia, saying miners had been forced to work underground without safety clothing and boots.

[gorillafuck]

like the USSR did after Khrushchov's coup.
That wasn't a coup.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That wasn't a coup.

What do you call what happened to Beria then?

[The Hong Se Sun]

I'd like to shift the discussion back to Australia in general. The country of Australia is not a victim of US imperialism, it is an advanced nation that actively participates in imperialism. As S.Artesan pointed out you need to read up more about your country. I'm not saying this as an attack but as a friendly suggestion from one Maoist to another. Others here were right to say that since you live in a country where capitalism is already in place there is no need for a new democratic revolution. Even though one could argue that nations living under a two party system may need a democratic revolution before they would be ready for a socialist one.

However, Australia does not need a "national liberation" from the US because the country decides to partake in the imperialist plunder of the world. But I'm getting off topic. If the party you are joining really thinks that in the present conditions of Australia there is a need to create a broad united front with the patriotic bourgeois then they are being a bit dogmatic which is not a trait of a true Maoist party.


To some posting on here I would like to say this: It is important to support united fronts of national liberation in colonized/feudal nations because it deals a great blow to imperialism. yes this means supporting working with patriotic bourgeois and progressive nationalist forces. Nationalist in the true meaning of the word and a word most leftist chose to never learn outside of white/imperialist nationalism is progressive when it comes to oppressed nations/occupied nations. The BPP was a black nationalist group and the Young lords were Puerto Rican nationalist but both upheld socialism and were more progressive than any group with in the US at that time who called themselves communist. So what I'm saying here is left wing "leave us alone/let us govern ourselves"=good, progressive, revolutionary and right wing/white/imperialist "we are better and more superior than you"=bad oppressive and reactionary.

[Kléber]

That's because the PRC didn't achieve socialism. Prior to 1976 it was on the road toward socialism in accordance with Marxist-Leninist principles though, but after the coup this was reversed and it started heading towards state-capitalism, like the USSR did after Khrushchov's coup.
The 1975 constitution claimed China had built socialism.


What do you call what happened to Beria then?
Too little too late.

[S.Artesian]

That's because the PRC didn't achieve socialism. Prior to 1976 it was on the road toward socialism in accordance with Marxist-Leninist principles though, but after the coup this was reversed and it started heading towards state-capitalism, like the USSR did after Khrushchov's coup.

Comrade,

It isn't like one day we achieve socialism, and then the next day we have organizations of workers controlling production, determining what society needs and how production for use will be provided.

You don't get anywhere on the "road to socialism" unless you have those organizations of the whole class actively making those decisions, determining the course to be taken from the getgo.

No elite, no party, operating as a substitute for the class, operating within the limits of one nation, can bring about socialism, or even move forward "on the road to socialism." Economic development can be achieved, but only at the cost of creating, within that very development, the decomposition of the gains of the revolution. That's what happened in Russia. That's what has happened and is happening in China.

There's no need for a coup by "revisionists" against "anti-revisionists" when both require the suppression of workers control and both obstruct workers revolution.

Again this is not the subject.

What is your opinion of Australia? Is it oppressed by US imperialism? Does it require a "new democratic revolution"?

[gorillafuck]

What do you call what happened to Beria then?
He was convicted of crimes and killed. It was legal, and he was not leader, he was in the running to be leader.

[Ned Kelly]

What does that have to do with Australia being a NATO member, and participating in the invasions of vietnam, afghanistan, and iraq?

The OP believe Australia needs an anti-imperialist struggle to rid itself of American imperialism. He is an australian patriot, and seems like he might be dangerously close to some weird national-maoist position to me.

Marx said that the proletariat of a particular nation need to rise up and become the leading force in a nation before dismantling the apparatus, part of that process would be expelling American influence in Australia, obviously, that's what I believe/strive for.

[S.Artesian]

To some posting on here I would like to say this: It is important to support united fronts of national liberation in colonized/feudal nations because it deals a great blow to imperialism. yes this means supporting working with patriotic bourgeois and progressive nationalist forces. Nationalist in the true meaning of the word and a word most leftist chose to never learn outside of white/imperialist nationalism is progressive when it comes to oppressed nations/occupied nations. The BPP was a black nationalist group and the Young lords were Puerto Rican nationalist but both upheld socialism and were more progressive than any group with in the US at that time who called themselves communist. So what I'm saying here is left wing "leave us alone/let us govern ourselves"=good, progressive, revolutionary and right wing/white/imperialist "we are better and more superior than you"=bad oppressive and reactionary.

Except... where has that ever worked. I don't think that is what happened in China, nor in Vietnam. All alliance with the "national bourgeoisie" in Vietnam only acted to mask the real social struggles at the core, drag the struggle out, and make it much more costly in human lives than it would have been.

In addition, at every turn, the national bourgeoisie and the Viet Minh found themselves fighting each other, rather than allied in any true united front.

Regarding the BPP, those of us old enough to have worked with the BPP [as I am, and did] might point out to you that the BPP's inability to provide a class analysis, to link itself thoroughly with the struggles of black workers left it, the BPP, into such dead ends as endorsing black capitalism, and actually producing "dollar bills" with Huey Newton's portrait in place of George Washington's.

I don't know what "nationalism" you are talking about, but the nationalism as practiced by Peron in Argentina [both times], the ANC in South Africa since 1994, the MNR in Bolivia 1952-1964 and again in the 1980s and 90s; Iran since 1979 has involved, and required destruction of workers own movement and organizations.

In the case of Peron and the MNR and others, it has only led to coups leading vicious wars of destruction against class conscious militants and workers.

And we can add to this list, the nationalism of Nasser in Egypt; the nationalism of the Allende government in Chile.

Returning to Vietnam, the policies of the official Communist Party-- the one that was allied with Moscow and formed the core to the Vietminh, the one that suppressed the workers' strikes in 1937 in Saigon due to the CP's demand for allegiance to the popular front govt in France; the one that opposed the workers- uprisings in 1945 in Saigon against the restoration of colonial rule-- extended the struggle some 35 years and eventually lead to what we see now-- Nike and golf courses being the "growth industries."

[S.Artesian]

Marx said that the proletariat of a particular nation need to rise up and become the leading force in a nation before dismantling the apparatus, part of that process would be expelling American influence in Australia, obviously, that's what I believe/strive for.


We're not questioning what you believe in, nor the sincerity of those beliefs. We are questioning your understanding of the class relations in Australia; where the revolutionary agent is, what the revolutionary program looks like.

Arguing for the expulsion of the US influence as something distinct from, separate and apart from the overthrow of capitalism, the expulsion of the "national bourgeoisie," the expropriation of the private property in the means of production, is only a smokescreen to cover the accommodation to capitalism as it actually exists in Australia.

Such a strategy will not lead to the proletariat becoming the leading force. It will not even lead to the expulsion of US influence. It will, however, be quite effective in leading to the defeat of the working class as it has all over the world, from Argentina to Zimbabwe.

[Ned Kelly]

We're not questioning what you believe in, nor the sincerity of those beliefs. We are questioning your understanding of the class relations in Australia; where the revolutionary agent is, what the revolutionary program looks like.

Arguing for the expulsion of the US influence as something distinct from, separate and apart from the overthrow of capitalism, the expulsion of the "national bourgeoisie," the expropriation of the private property in the means of production, is only a smokescreen to cover the accommodation to capitalism as it actually exists in Australia.

Such a strategy will not lead to the proletariat becoming the leading force. It will not even lead to the expulsion of US influence. It will, however, be quite effective in leading to the defeat of the working class as it has all over the world, from Argentina to Zimbabwe.

I agree with you actually, I suppose I must have been sending mixed messages, if you look at my OP you'll see my skepticism about the line of allying with the national bourgeoisie

[Palingenisis]

We're under the thumb of U.S led imperialism, so yes.

Uh....Im not sure but I would verge on the side of saying Australia is an Imperialist nation.

Im even more unsure as to whether Ireland is an Imperialist nation but I would be against firmly any alliance with the small capitalists in Ireland.

[Ned Kelly]

Uh....Im not sure but I would verge on the side of saying Australia is an Imperialist nation.

Im even more unsure as to whether Ireland is an Imperialist nation but I would be against firmly any alliance with the small capitalists in Ireland.
It's a complex situation. Our government, it's actions, our military actions, the governments treatment of the Aboriginal population, all clearly imperialist. But why is Australia doing all this? It's not so much that we are a leading imperialist nation, it's that as a result of US domination of the Australian market place, we need to toe the line of U.S imperialism, and act as what George W. called 'the deputy sheriff in the pacific' *shudder*

[gorillafuck]

It's a complex situation. Our government, it's actions, our military actions, the governments treatment of the Aboriginal population, all clearly imperialist. But why is Australia doing all this? It's not so much that we are a leading imperialist nation, it's that as a result of US domination of the Australian market place, we need to toe the line of U.S imperialism, and act as what George W. called 'the deputy sheriff in the pacific' *shudder*
Australia has been oppressing native people since they were a british colony.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The 1975 constitution claimed China had built socialism.

They were wrong to say that then

[Ned Kelly]

Australia has been oppressing native people since they were a british colony.
I know that, obviously, I am a Koori. But it has continued even as British influence has faded.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Uh....Im not sure but I would verge on the side of saying Australia is an Imperialist nation.

Im even more unsure as to whether Ireland is an Imperialist nation but I would be against firmly any alliance with the small capitalists in Ireland.

What makes you think that Ireland could be imperialist comrade? I'd have thought that Ireland is a victim of British imperialism

[Marxach-Léinínach]

He was convicted of crimes and killed. It was legal, and he was not leader, he was in the running to be leader.

From Bill Bland's "The 'Doctors' Case' and the Death of Stalin

It was stated that all the accused had

". . . pleaded guilty",
(Report of Trial of Beria, in: ibid.; p. 446).

but we have only the conspirators word for this, since

"the trial was closed to the public".
('New York Times', 24 December 1953; p. 1).

Nicolaevsky, indeed, insists that
". . . Beria was tried behind closed doors without any confessions"'.
(Nicolaevsky: op. cit.; p. 120).

and the Albanian leader, the Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha, affirms that a Soviet military adviser to Albania informed the Albanians that he had been a witness at Beria's 'trial' and that Beria, far from 'confessing' had defended himself very strongly in court and refuted all the charges :

"When a general, who I believe was called Sergatskov, came to Tirana as Soviet military adviser, he also told us something about the trial of Beria. He told us that he had been called as a witness to declare in court that Beria had allegedly behaved arrogantly towards him. On this occasion Sergatskov told our comrades in confidence: 'Beria defended himself very strongly in court, accepted none of the asccusations and refuted them all".
(E.Hoxha (1984): p, 31).

Many Western commentators accept that the charges against Beria and his co-defendants were a mere pretext for their judicial murder. Even Stalin's daughter Svetlana, who disliked Beria and was inclined to believe any story detrimental to him, testifies that :

"Beria's 'trial' was staged . . . without any evidence".
(S. Alliluyeva (1969): p. 375).

[FreeFocus]

Australia is a settler state and engages in imperialism, both against Indigenous Australians and on a global scale (typically as a junior partner in American imperialism). Nonetheless, to say that Australia is a victim of American imperialism is ludicrous, and it's also ludicrous to say that Australian crimes against Indigenous Australians results from the US egging them on. Australia was committing genocide and ethnic cleansing when the US was still doing the same here during the Indian Wars.

The only legitimate thing fuckrevision is alluding to is that, because the United States is the center of global imperialism, it exerts a very uneven influence (cultural and otherwise) on the periphery and a considerably uneven influence on junior partners in international capitalism. In this way, some of this sentiment, even in other parts of the Western world, should be encouraged. The ideas expressed by fuckrevision can lead either Left or Right - when going to the Left, one will attack American imperialism's influence in their country and denounce their country's participation in imperialism, seeking to extricate it. When going to the Right, one will talk from a position of privilege, one of White supremacy generally (BNP-esque), about "reclaiming" the country and the like.

So, for example, there were movements in Eastern Europe opposing US and NATO bases/expansion, that talked about US imperialism and its negative effects. Some of these countries are also participating in global imperialism. Were these movements reactionary?

[Palingenisis]

Australia is a settler state and engages in imperialism, both against Indigenous Australians and on a global scale (typically as a junior partner in American imperialism). Nonetheless, to say that Australia is a victim of American imperialism is ludicrous, and it's also ludicrous to say that Australian crimes against Indigenous Australians results from the US egging them on. Australia was committing genocide and ethnic cleansing when the US was still doing the same here during the Indian Wars.



Id forgot about that. You are right.

[FreeFocus]

What makes you think that Ireland could be imperialist comrade? I'd have thought that Ireland is a victim of British imperialism

Ireland is a rich country and has been a free market bastion. By definition, participating in global capitalism from such a position, it's imperialist (though obviously a very junior partner in the arrangement, and I'm not comparing Ireland to such imperialist powers as Britain, the US, or even Australia, which has supported terrible crimes in Indonesia and East Timor). You have the national army of Ireland, once a liberating force fighting British imperialism before Irish independence, now suppressing resistance and acting as occupiers in Afghanistan, among other places.

[Palingenisis]

Infact into the 80s the First Nations of Australia were hunted for sport.

Australia also took part in the United State's war against the Vietnamese people.

[Crimson Commissar]

So, for example, there were movements in Eastern Europe opposing US and NATO bases/expansion, that talked about US imperialism and its negative effects. Some of these countries are also participating in global imperialism. Were these movements reactionary?
I don't see how opposing US imperialism is reactionary. It is infact very revolutionary. But when these movements are also capitalist or nationalist, they are instead reactionary. Even modern Russia is somewhat against US imperialism, but does that mean we should support the Russian government? No, of course fucking not. Modern russia is reactionary and has completely betrayed the ideals of socialism. Likewise, any other nationalist/capitalist state is also reactionary, regardless of their opinion of the US.

[Ned Kelly]

Australia is a settler state and engages in imperialism, both against Indigenous Australians and on a global scale (typically as a junior partner in American imperialism). Nonetheless, to say that Australia is a victim of American imperialism is ludicrous, and it's also ludicrous to say that Australian crimes against Indigenous Australians results from the US egging them on. Australia was committing genocide and ethnic cleansing when the US was still doing the same here during the Indian Wars.

The only legitimate thing fuckrevision is alluding to is that, because the United States is the center of global imperialism, it exerts a very uneven influence (cultural and otherwise) on the periphery and a considerably uneven influence on junior partners in international capitalism. In this way, some of this sentiment, even in other parts of the Western world, should be encouraged. The ideas expressed by fuckrevision can lead either Left or Right - when going to the Left, one will attack American imperialism's influence in their country and denounce their country's participation in imperialism, seeking to extricate it. When going to the Right, one will talk from a position of privilege, one of White supremacy generally (BNP-esque), about "reclaiming" the country and the like.

So, for example, there were movements in Eastern Europe opposing US and NATO bases/expansion, that talked about US imperialism and its negative effects. Some of these countries are also participating in global imperialism. Were these movements reactionary?

There is a lot in Australian history that makes me absolutely sick, first and foremost the treatment of my people. But currently, the fact that we participate in U.S wars of imperialist aggression and do things like invade the Solomon Islands on a local scale. What I am saying is that the only way to remedy this is to expel U.S investment after worker's control is established, and expropriate all foreign owned industry into worker's hands. What I'm not saying is that this procedure should take place under the current capitalist system, which would just result in the strengthening of the local oppressors. They would be targeted by the same process.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Ireland is a rich country and has been a free market bastion. By definition, participating in global capitalism from such a position, it's imperialist (though obviously a very junior partner in the arrangement). You have the national army of Ireland, once a liberating force fighting British imperialism before Irish independence, now suppressing resistance and acting as occupiers in Afghanistan, among other places.

Most of the Free State army's original recruits were actually ex-British army I believe. Those who fought in the IRA during the Tan War were subsequently against the settlement on a ratio of something like 2:1 and fought against the Free State army during the civil war.

[S.Artesian]

I agree with you actually, I suppose I must have been sending mixed messages, if you look at my OP you'll see my skepticism about the line of allying with the national bourgeoisie

Good. Then the more you study about the actual processes of capital accumulation in Australia, [actually, almost anywhere], the more I am confidant that you will realize that the independence of, and the opposition of, the working class to the bourgeoisie, as a class, "national" and international is the only way to advance revolutionary struggle. FWIW.

[Palingenisis]

Ireland is a rich country and has been a free market bastion. By definition, participating in global capitalism from such a position, it's imperialist (though obviously a very junior partner in the arrangement, and I'm not comparing Ireland to such imperialist powers as Britain, the US, or even Australia, which has supported terrible crimes in Indonesia and East Timor). You have the national army of Ireland, once a liberating force fighting British imperialism before Irish independence, now suppressing resistance and acting as occupiers in Afghanistan, among other places.

Its a little more complicated as basically to cut a long story short the British state bribed the conservative part of the national liberation movement in the 1920s and than they turned very viciously on their "own"....When Fianna Fail first came to power in the very late 20s they tried to fight against a neo-colonial situation but ultimately capitulated (though they did some very good things like slum clearance...and Irish slums at that time were very hellish...even a British newspaper described them as worse than Calcutta).

The state in the 26 counties acts more viciously against Republicans now than the one in the 6 counties....However the Irish middle class and labour aristocracy in the 26 counties by and large are firmly on the side of Imperialism. And are as well off a lot of the time as that counter parts in France or England.

[Palingenisis]

The so called Good Friday Agreement was the buying off of the national bourgiouse in the six counties.

The lower working class is the only revolutionary class in Ireland...And the only one that sympathizes with Anti-Imperialism now.

[Ned Kelly]

The so called Good Friday Agreement was the buying off of the national bourgiouse in the six counties.

The lower working class is the only revolutionary class in Ireland...And the only one that sympathizes with Anti-Imperialism now.

What are your thoughts on groups such as the Real IRA?

[S.Artesian]

What makes you think that Ireland could be imperialist comrade? I'd have thought that Ireland is a victim of British imperialism

You need to make a distinction between the Irish people, and the poorer classes of that people, and the Irish nation, the EU member Ireland, currently governed, and into hell, by the Fianna Fail.

You need to make that same distinction between poor Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland and the Sinn Fein whether in or out of a coalition government.

[FreeFocus]

Its a little more complicated as basically to cut a long story short the British state bribed the conservative part of the national liberation movement in the 1920s and than they turned very viciously on their "own"....When Fianna Fail first came to power in the very late 20s they tried to fight against a neo-colonial situation but ultimately capitulated (though they did some very good things like slum clearance...and Irish slums at that time were very hellish...even a British newspaper described them as worse than Calcutta).

The state in the 26 counties acts more viciously against Republicans now than the one in the 6 counties....However the Irish middle class and labour aristocracy in the 26 counties by and large are firmly on the side of Imperialism. And are as well off a lot of the time as that counter parts in France or England.

Wasn't this bribing in the 20s after the formation of the Irish Free State? Am I wrong that this was the end (or signaled the end) of the British occupation of most of the island?

And I could imagine that the 26 counties suppress Republicans because the national bourgeoisie is very comfortable with their position (not necessarily at the moment given the financial crisis, but I mean in recent history, with the economic explosion), and thus see no reason to lend support to the movement. They act as junior partners to the British and Americans.

[Palingenisis]

What are your thoughts on groups such as the Real IRA?

I dont think all their actions are prudent...Im glad they exist though...And its not for me to lecture people how best to respond to occupation.

However I think that cross class elements of their approach our stupid.

That said there are good Communists in the 32 csm so Im sure they exist in the Real IRA.

[gorillafuck]

I know that, obviously, I am a Koori. But it has continued even as British influence has faded.
Do you really think the Australian capitalist state would treat Native people any better were the US influence gone?

[S.Artesian]

There is a lot in Australian history that makes me absolutely sick, first and foremost the treatment of my people. But currently, the fact that we participate in U.S wars of imperialist aggression and do things like invade the Solomon Islands on a local scale. What I am saying is that the only way to remedy this is to expel U.S investment after worker's control is established, and expropriate all foreign owned industry into worker's hands. What I'm not saying is that this procedure should take place under the current capitalist system, which would just result in the strengthening of the local oppressors. They would be targeted by the same process.


I think you're missing the point. The Australian bourgeoisie do what they do not because they are afraid of the US bourgeoisie, not because they are dominated by the US bourgeoisie, but because their own interests as a bourgeois class aligns with the interests of the US bourgeoisie.

Actual US economic power over the Australian economy is quite limited. The Australian capitalists have proven themselves quite capable of exploiting resources and people beyond the rates of sustenance, subsistence, or reproduction, all by themselves. They certainly have not been compelled to do anything opposed to their own class interests as bourgeoisie by the US>

[Palingenisis]

Wasn't this bribing in the 20s after the formation of the Irish Free State? Am I wrong that this was the end (or signaled the end) of the British occupation of most of the island?

I dont want to derail this thread into Irish history but the Free State period in the 20s saw nearly as much immigration as during the famine...Most of it political...Republicans and Socialists were either murdered or driven out of the country..It was one of the worst periods in Irish history. It set the tone for what came after as well.

[Ned Kelly]

I suppose not. We're going to be kept down and unable to realise our potential under any capitalist system I guess

[gorillafuck]

I suppose not. We're going to be kept down and unable to realise our potential under any capitalist system I guess
Exactly, so do you see why a revolution of the Australian bourgeoisie wouldn't be any good?

[Ned Kelly]

I stated in my OP I'm more than skeptical about the working class allying with the local capitalists, that was the whole basis of me starting this thread. I oppose the 2 stage revolutionary theory

[Palingenisis]

And I could imagine that the 26 counties suppress Republicans because the national bourgeoisie is very comfortable with their position (not necessarily at the moment given the financial crisis, but I mean in recent history, with the economic explosion), and thus see no reason to lend support to the movement. They act as junior partners to the British and Americans.

They are....They allow US planes to load in Shannon and take part in the Imperialist adventure in Afghanistan as you have pointed out...These things though are very unpopular among the working class.

But there are some contradictions...For instance our goverment is giving away our natural gas for free to Shell because they bribed corrupt politicians. This counts as Imperialist plunder. The 26 county state has been extremely vicious against resistance to this...http://www.shelltosea.com/

[FreeFocus]

There is a lot in Australian history that makes me absolutely sick, first and foremost the treatment of my people. But currently, the fact that we participate in U.S wars of imperialist aggression and do things like invade the Solomon Islands on a local scale. What I am saying is that the only way to remedy this is to expel U.S investment after worker's control is established, and expropriate all foreign owned industry into worker's hands. What I'm not saying is that this procedure should take place under the current capitalist system, which would just result in the strengthening of the local oppressors. They would be targeted by the same process.

You should have made this clear in the beginning, then. That much is a given, if you have worker's control, why would you have capitalist and imperialist investment and development? Mao's NDR strategy was a sham. The only instance where a temporary alliance with the national bourgeoisie possibly makes sense is when fighting occupation, i.e. working with Chiang Kai-shek to fight Japan (which was suspect anyway given all of the Japanese collaborators among the national bourgeoisie).

[Ned Kelly]

You're right, I suppose I've been unclear in stating what I think. But thats the definitive basis of it, what you highlighted.

[Palingenisis]

You need to make that same distinction between poor Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland and the Sinn Fein whether in or out of a coalition government.

A lot of people have lost their "faith" in Provisional Sinn Fein but still vote for them because they are better than the SDLP for getting more for "their" community. So basically its a sectarian vote...The same reason Prods (and their are a LOT of poor protestant members of the working class) vote for the DUP..."Peace Walls" have doubled since the Good Friday Agreement which has basically cemented sectarianism. Sectarianism has been a worse enemy to the Irish working class than any gun. The occupied six counties has the lowest wages in the UK apart from Cornwell...I wonder why?

[Palingenisis]

You're right, I suppose I've been unclear in stating what I think. But thats the definitive basis of it, what you highlighted.

Has there been ANY resistance among the Australian capitalists to Imperialism?

[Ned Kelly]

Has there been ANY resistance among the Australian capitalists to Imperialism?

No, which is a reason (alongside the not insignificant fact that they are the enemy) I'm opposed to any notion of allying with the national bourgeoisie.

[scarletghoul]

The capitalist system is now completely global (with only a few very small socialist territories), and 'nation states' no longer function as independent political-economic entities. Ireland and Australia and many other countries reached official independence, but remain ruled by the global bourgeoisie, which has its main base in the US but also includes Irish, Australian, British, Japanese, South Korean, German, Indian, Nigerian, Afghan, etc, capitalists. The system functions globally, and it's very rare that a country's national bourgeoisie opposes the US bourgeoisie. This global empire has secondary financial and military power centres like western Europe, Aus+NZ, and northeast Asia, but in general the world capitalist system is unified, with no independent competing nation states.. (its very rare for two countries' standing armies to fight each other in a proper war nowadays. the majority of wars are either civil or the empire imposing its power on a restless population.) This situation is what Huey Newton in 1970 called 'reactionary intercommunalism', because the world is no longer a set of nations but a dispersed collection of communities, operating under the same capitalist empire. Under these conditions its no longer possible for a country to 'decolonise' and because an independent nation state. If the oppression is global than so must be the liberation, and we should aim for 'revolutionary intercommunalism', that is, world socialist revolution. Huey classed China, the northern halfs of Korea and Vietnam, Cuba, Albania, and the NLF-controlled areas in southern Vietnam as 'liberated territories'. Things have changed a lot since then, but I think his theory was in general correct. We should aim to liberate territory, fighting the bourgeoisie globally because they are a global class and there is no way for a community to secure its self-determination unless it abolishes its own bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then I think you've become a post-Maoist. There is use in Third World movements allying with the national petit-bourgeoisie, but no longer with any bourgeois elements.

[scarletghoul]

Then I think you've become a post-Maoist. There is use in Third World movements allying with the national petit-bourgeoisie, but no longer with any bourgeois elements.
Like Mao I am a dialectical materialist, and see that the objective situation is constantly changing. No one could deny that the world has changed a lot since the 1940s.. With new objective conditions must come new conclusions. Huey Newton's theory was not a correction of Mao's, but rather an update. Mao would agree that we should keep up with the times and can't transpose his conclusions of 70 years ago to the modern day

Whether I'm classed as a Marxist or Leninist or Maoist really depends on your definition.. If a Marxist is someone who agrees with every one of Marx's conclusions then I follow Marx in saying "I am not a Marxist". If Marxism is defined as his method (DM) rather than conclusions then I definitely am a Marxist.

I call myself a Maoist because like most important revolutionary movements today I am influenced by and agree with most of Mao's ideas, so the word Maoist serves both as shorthand for my general theoretical makeup and an indicator of the global movement I support..

And yes there's obviously use in allying with some petty-bourgeoisie for tactical reasons as they will want to combat the big bourgeoisie (this applies to all countries).

[Palingenisis]

Then I think you've become a post-Maoist. There is use in Third World movements allying with the national petit-bourgeoisie, but no longer with any bourgeois elements.

The Maoists in the third world define the national bourgeois as what others would call petit-bourgeious...Small business men (shop and pub owners, etc).

[Ned Kelly]

The Maoists in the third world define the national bourgeois as what others would call petit-bourgeious...Small business men (shop and pub owners, etc).

What is your opinion on pub, shop, milk bar owners, etc. in nations such as Australia or Ireland? A group that could be allied with?

[Palingenisis]

What is your opinion on pub, shop, milk bar owners, etc. in nations such as Australia or Ireland? A group that could be allied with?

Im far from convinced that Australia has a similar situation to Ireland...In the 26 counties definitely not...In the occupied 6 counties it would depend on the circumstances.

[scarletghoul]

Then I think you've become a post-Maoist. There is use in Third World movements allying with the national petit-bourgeoisie, but no longer with any bourgeois elements.
oh shit you were talking to the post above me werent you

[Ned Kelly]

define post-maoism?

[S.Artesian]

What is your opinion on pub, shop, milk bar owners, etc. in nations such as Australia or Ireland? A group that could be allied with?

What about the workers in those pubs, shops, etc. who may or may not be paid below the minimum, have their tips scammed, have no benefits, not get overtime payments?

I would think we're better off allying with them rather than their exploiters, know what I mean?

[Obs]

define post-maoism?
Maoism that isn't stuck in 1962.

[Rafiq]

You're right, no doubt the actions of the Australian government are of an imperialist nature, but that's due to it's need to appease the U.S, that's why all in power are essentially U.S arsekissers.

Don't go about scapegoating now.

I'm sure if the Australian government was as powerful as the United States's regime they'd be doing the same thing... Or worse.

I don't think the Australian government is a puppet state for the US, that's completely absurd.

They are simply allied.

So if you want to get anywhere in the first place, I'd suggest you stay away from Maoism, too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

oh shit you were talking to the post above me werent you

No, I was referring to you.


The Maoists in the third world define the national bourgeois as what others would call petit-bourgeois...Small business men (shop and pub owners, etc).

It depends on each country. I read that discussion you guys had with S. Artesian, and I didn't know how much of the Trotskyist criticism was based on Maoist semantical mistakes. On the other hand, Mao's maneuverings that led to the massacre of Indonesia's official Communists were inexcusable. The Maoists in the Philippines define the "national bourgeoisie" as both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements outside the "monopoly bourgeoisie."

Besides, thanks to the Internet, not all in small business are "patriotic."

Back to the Second International, comrade(s)...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should add a model that post-Maoists should criticize but consider:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/backsliding-belarus-eus-t147204/index.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is your opinion on pub, shop, milk bar owners, etc. in nations such as Australia or Ireland? A group that could be allied with?What about the workers in those pubs, shops, etc. who may or may not be paid below the minimum, have their tips scammed, have no benefits, not get overtime payments?

I would think we're better off allying with them rather than their exploiters, know what I mean?

I know comrade Paul Cockshott called this "the worst sort of reformism," but I once suggested a shift in the mechanism of refundable tax credits based upon having employment income as one component of reaching a living wage:

Diverting these employee credits towards employer payment of closely audited higher wages of a non-executive type would solve the problem of most people not understanding the effects of various tax credits on after-tax income, and would make the income tax system more efficient, but would reinforce the corporate bourgeois character of the modern state by means of employer lobbying for additional refundable credits that would be more difficult to phase out. Working-class pressure that is normally aimed at the modern state would become direct but economistic pressure on employers themselves.

Other labour carrots (read: subsidies/largesse at the expense of the bourgeoisie) would be implemented for small businesses, and also some populist on the Internet suggested that the government simply hire everybody and contract them to private businesses as appropriate. This would solve the problems of wage theft, not having benefits, etc.

The other side of the coin:

Can "tough on crime" populism be progressive? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-tough-crime-t138310/index.html)


Most of the time, "tough on crime" populism is reactionary. However, can there be instances where it is progressive?

I'm looking at things like outright wage theft, other labour law violations, and the usual canard of corporate crime. Very rarely is wage theft punishable by jail time. Ditto with other labour law violations. Meanwhile, not enough corporate crime is met with practically lifelong jail time.

I don't think this labour-oriented "tough on crime" is fit for a party program, since socialism renders these irrelevant. However, electoral platforms or agitational action platforms could be the place for these "Mass Line" appeals to workers affected by crime rates in their areas.

The likelihood of all that I said above in this post being applicable is higher in the Third World (not scaring away the "national" elements of the petit-bourgeoisie there).

[mosfeld]

So if you want to get anywhere in the first place, I'd suggest you stay away from Maoism, too.

And instead stick with council communist ultra-leftist garbage which hasn't done anything ever for communism and instead only gives lip-service to communism but serves the bourgeoisie and imperialists in its anti-Leninist bullshit? Are you joking?

[Paul Cockshott]

The key point was that for Mao the alliance was temporary and over by the late 60s. For the current CPC leadership it is seen as long term... A longterm NEP, this was not the Maoist position.

[S.Artesian]

The key point was that for Mao the alliance was temporary and over by the late 60s. For the current CPC leadership it is seen as long term... A longterm NEP, this was not the Maoist position.

No. Not hardly. Not even close. The key points are:

1. What is labeled "feudalism" or "semi-feudalism" is in fact capitalist exploitation of agricultural production, of landed labor.

2. What is described as a "national bourgeoisie" is not a national bourgeoisie but a petit-bourgeoisie. "National bourgeoisie" is a term devised for an ideological purpose, not one based on economic analysis.

3. The "alliance" does not accomplish what it is argued it is supposed to accomplish: "rapid industrialization" of the country.

4. The NEP was not designed to bring about rapid industrialization and it did not involve an alliance with a "national bourgeoisie," since that bourgeoisie had been expropriated, expelled and/or physically destroyed.

5. What has occurred in China since 1979 [actually 1983 when FDI really took off] is not an NEP, no more than maquiladoras in Honduras, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic are NEPs. China's program has been based on almost $1 trillion in FDI, the devolution of state-operated enterprises into a version of state-subsidized private production, etc. The NEP did not require nor did it receive much FDI.


Other than that, comrade, I agree with everything you say.


Happy New Year.

[the last donut of the night]

We're under the thumb of U.S led imperialism, so yes.

So are Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and all of the NATO countries "second-world" countries now? What the fuck, dude?

[the last donut of the night]

You're right, no doubt the actions of the Australian government are of an imperialist nature, but that's due to it's need to appease the U.S, that's why all in power are essentially U.S arsekissers.

Oh please. Now I feel so bad for the Australian bourgeoisie, being forced to do all that mean stuff :(

[Paul Cockshott]

No. Not hardly. Not even close. The key points are:

1. What is labeled "feudalism" or "semi-feudalism" is in fact capitalist exploitation of agricultural production, of landed labor.
I did not say anything about that, so in what sense are you replying to me


2. What is described as a "national bourgeoisie" is not a national bourgeoisie but a petit-bourgeoisie. "National bourgeoisie" is a term devised for an ideological purpose, not one based on economic analysis.
I think you are wrong there, the Communist government allowed many capitalist firms employing wage labour to continue until they were nationalised in the 60s, this surely was not a petty bourgeoisie, but a class of capitalists. The analysis on which this was based was not economic, but political, I dont think it ever claimed to be anything else.




3. The "alliance" does not accomplish what it is argued it is supposed to accomplish: "rapid industrialization" of the country.
For all the things you could accuse the CPC of, this is one of the strangest.
Under their government China has become what is probably the 2nd industrial power in the world. The rate of growth admittedly was not quite as fast as in the USSR, but to claim that China has not industrialised seems very odd.



4. The NEP was not designed to bring about rapid industrialization and it did not involve an alliance with a "national bourgeoisie," since that bourgeoisie had been expropriated, expelled and/or physically destroyed.
To my mind the similarity is with the post 1980s policy and the NEP, in that both involved a growth in market capitalist economy.



5. What has occurred in China since 1979 [actually 1983 when FDI really took off] is not an NEP, no more than maquiladoras in Honduras, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic are NEPs. China's program has been based on almost $1 trillion in FDI, the devolution of state-operated enterprises into a version of state-subsidized private production, etc. The NEP did not require nor did it receive much FDI.


There was net inward investment in the early years of the opening, since the late 90s there has been a net capital outflow.

I am not defending the current policy, but I think there definite similarities with the NEP as both involve a marketisation of the economy. Clearly China in the 80s was more developed than Russia in the 20s though.


Other than that, comrade, I agree with everything you say.


Happy New Year.[/QUOTE]

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is described as a "national bourgeoisie" is not a national bourgeoisie but a petit-bourgeoisie. "National bourgeoisie" is a term devised for an ideological purpose, not one based on economic analysis.

How does that explain the fact that only the most reactionary elements of the GMD headed to Taiwan? The rest of the GMD merged into the CPC.

How does that explain the intimate Maoist connection of the "national bourgeoisie" with Popular Frontism when in parliamentary opposition? :glare:

[S.Artesian]

Originally Posted by S.Artesian http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1974097#post1974097)
No. Not hardly. Not even close. The key points are:

1. What is labeled "feudalism" or "semi-feudalism" is in fact capitalist exploitation of agricultural production, of landed labor.
I did not say anything about that, so in what sense are you replying to me

EDIT:In the sense that I am dealing the "background" to Mao's "new democratic revolution," which is this mythology of "feudal relations" existing in counter-position to developed bourgeois relations when in fact the "backward" relations of landed labor are adaptations to the world markets, are in fact manifestations of the limits of capitalist "development."
Quote:


2. What is described as a "national bourgeoisie" is not a national bourgeoisie but a petit-bourgeoisie. "National bourgeoisie" is a term devised for an ideological purpose, not one based on economic analysis.
I think you are wrong there, the Communist government allowed many capitalist firms employing wage labour to continue until they were nationalised in the 60s, this surely was not a petty bourgeoisie, but a class of capitalists. The analysis on which this was based was not economic, but political, I dont think it ever claimed to be anything else.


That individual capitalist enterprises, that numbers of individual capitalist enterprises are preserved, allowed to function, does not make the individual capitalists a class of national capitalists, organized socially as such a class. That's the point. If the "national capitalists" had such an organization as a class it certainly was allied with the KMT and with international capital. The fragments of capitalism and capitalists that remained don't quite achieve the organization necessary to organizing themselves as an actual social class. This is not a political attribute, but a function of the economic organization. Kind of why I don't consider the China of 1949--19?? to be state capitalist.
Quote:


3. The "alliance" does not accomplish what it is argued it is supposed to accomplish: "rapid industrialization" of the country.
For all the things you could accuse the CPC of, this is one of the strangest.
Under their government China has become what is probably the 2nd industrial power in the world. The rate of growth admittedly was not quite as fast as in the USSR, but to claim that China has not industrialised seems very odd.

I love the flip-flopping of our Maoists. First they claim the alliance with the national capitalists, the national bourgeoisie ended sometime in the 1960s with the nationalization of those enterprises, and now they claim that it's odd to think that the transformation of China, beginning say for convenience's sake in 1979 with the 4 reforms, didn't accomplish industrialization.

So let's review-- the "new democratic revolution,"the alliance with the "national capitalists," ended in the 1960s. We are talking about that period, not the post 1979 period when we talk about alliances with the national bourgeoisie.

The industrialization in the post 1979 period has not been the product of any alliance with the national bourgeoisie, but an alliance with international capitalism, the result of FDI.

And even that industrialization can be said to have been not quite as deep, thorough as everyone might think-- since half the population still lives in rural areas and is tied to the rural economy.
Quote:


4. The NEP was not designed to bring about rapid industrialization and it did not involve an alliance with a "national bourgeoisie," since that bourgeoisie had been expropriated, expelled and/or physically destroyed.
To my mind the similarity is with the post 1980s policy and the NEP, in that both involved a growth in market capitalist economy.

And again, there is no similarity. One involved relaxations on agricultural production and exchange, domestic markets, domestic exchange, for stimulation of agriculture, to supply the domestic urban markets of Russia. The other is completely the product of the penetration of international capital. That's a bit more than a technical difference.


5. What has occurred in China since 1979 [actually 1983 when FDI really took off] is not an NEP, no more than maquiladoras in Honduras, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic are NEPs. China's program has been based on almost $1 trillion in FDI, the devolution of state-operated enterprises into a version of state-subsidized private production, etc. The NEP did not require nor did it receive much FDI.
There was net inward investment in the early years of the opening, since the late 90s there has been a net capital outflow.


So what? What is the basis for China's growth since 1983? What were the structural changes that produced the industrialization? It was the conscious adoption of a "low wage, foreign investment" strategy.


I am not defending the current policy, but I think there definite similarities with the NEP as both involve a marketisation of the economy. Clearly China in the 80s was more developed than Russia in the 20s though.


Yeah, I know you believe that. But the differences in what took place are far greater than the superficial similarities glossed over in the term "marketization." Look at the actual content of the NEP, and what the results were in terms of class structure, in terms of migration to the cities, development of industry, levels of industrial exports and industrial imports. Tell me if any of that in the NEP period compares to the post 4 reforms period.

Other than that, comrade, I agree with everything you say.

[S.Artesian]

And instead stick with council communist ultra-leftist garbage which hasn't done anything ever for communism and instead only gives lip-service to communism but serves the bourgeoisie and imperialists in its anti-Leninist bullshit? Are you joking?

Right. Unlike the Maoists-- teaming up with Savimbi, UNITA, the USA, the UofSA in Angola; providing Pinochet with favorable trade terms. Yes, they've done so much for communism, it's a mystery to me why the whole world isn't communist. Must be the fault of those council communists, those anti-Leninists who actually think class struggle means class struggle for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the overthrow of capitalism rather than an alliance with the bourgeoisie at the expense of the workers.

Shame on you ultra-left council communists. You haven't done enough for communism-- like say the 3rd Intl did in Spain, Germany, France, Vietnam.

Hell, next to you ultra-lefts, WW2 did more for communism. Remember "nach Hitler, uns"? That helped communism a whole lot.

[S.Artesian]

I think comrade fuckrevisionism needs to go back and examine his basic contention-- that Australian agriculture is somehow being suppressed, destroyed, looted, impoverished by US agriculture.

He needs to produce the data and the explanation for the data, or abandon the contention-- and if he abandon's that contention then he should realize that there is no basis for any of his other arguments about Australia's subordination to US imperialism.

[Paul Cockshott]

That individual capitalist enterprises, that numbers of individual capitalist enterprises are preserved, allowed to function, does not make the individual capitalists a class of national capitalists, organized socially as such a class. That's the point. If the "national capitalists" had such an organization as a class it certainly was allied with the KMT and with international capital. The fragments of capitalism and capitalists that remained don't quite achieve the organization necessary to organizing themselves as an actual social class. This is not a political attribute, but a function of the economic organization.

Does it matter whether the national capitalists met your definition of a class.
During the war against the KMT it made sense to try and split the enemy by
promising to protect the interests of 'patriotic' capitalists. How could you tell
if a capitalist was patriotic - essentially by their attitude to the CPC versus the KMT. Those who saw the way the wind was blowing and stopped actively supporting the KMT were the 'patriotic' ones.
It was at that stage transparently a manoeuvre to weaken KMT support.






I love the flip-flopping of our Maoists. First they claim the alliance with the national capitalists, the national bourgeoisie ended sometime in the 1960s with the nationalization of those enterprises, and now they claim that it's odd to think that the transformation of China, beginning say for convenience's sake in 1979 with the 4 reforms, didn't accomplish industrialization.

As I understand it the CPC under Mao did not nationalise the factories of the 'patriotic' capitalists when they first took over, initially for political reasons, and later allowed them to persist alongside state owned industry as a contribution
to economic growth. Economic growth during the 50s was actually reasonably rapid, though the bulk of the industrialisation took place in the state sector.
Then in the 60s the remaining factories were nationalised.

The Deng wing of the party wanted to continue the policies of the 50s, and
in my view, there was a significant fraction of the CP leadership that remained
sympathetic to the national bourgeoisie so long as these contributed to the
development of the economy : this is what the black or white cat refers to.

This position obviously won out again in the 1980s and a policy much more favourable to private agriculture and private industry was adopted.




The industrialization in the post 1979 period has not been the product of any alliance with the national bourgeoisie, but an alliance with international capitalism, the result of FDI.


If there is no alliance with the national bourgeoisie, why were CP rules changed to allow capitalists to join the party?

What was the 'get rich is glorious' slogan but an alliance with the national bourgeoisie?




So what? What is the basis for China's growth since 1983? What were the structural changes that produced the industrialization? It was the conscious adoption of a "low wage, foreign investment" strategy.

According to
Sources of Chinese economic growth, 1978-1996 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x0Ef1yc7PG0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=sources+of+chinese+economic+growth&ots=JUNmFX1ckO&sig=PexdSKi8W0phnsNm2aRQnMspNfw)

C Bramall

A major source of the economic growth in the post 1978 period was the prior development of a workforce with the skills and aptitudes required for modern industry during the previous period. The opening to foreign investment certainly gave them access to modern - primarily Japanese and Taiwanese production technology and methods of industrial organisation, and from the 1990s on involved a shift to an export led growth model starting with the yuan devaluations of the early 90s.

The consequences of this has been that China began to run significant trade surpluses and become a net capital exporter. The Chinese state now holds sufficient reserves of dollars to easily buy out the US and Japanese firms there should it so chose.

But the process has led to the reconstitution of a national bourgoisie and a sharp polarisation of incomes within China. There are now over half a million millionaires there, which constitutes a significant national bourgeoisie. With this growth in wealth grows political influence.



Yeah, I know you believe that. But the differences in what took place are far greater than the superficial similarities glossed over in the term "marketization." Look at the actual content of the NEP, and what the results were in terms of class structure, in terms of migration to the cities, development of industry, levels of industrial exports and industrial imports. Tell me if any of that in the NEP period compares to the post 4 reforms period.
.
Perhaps you could clarify what you consider to be the differences.

[S.Artesian]

Does it matter whether the national capitalists met your definition of a class.
During the war against the KMT it made sense to try and split the enemy by
promising to protect the interests of 'patriotic' capitalists. How could you tell
if a capitalist was patriotic - essentially by their attitude to the CPC versus the KMT. Those who saw the way the wind was blowing and stopped actively supporting the KMT were the 'patriotic' ones.
It was at that stage transparently a manoeuvre to weaken KMT support.

And your point is? Can you give some examples of "patriotic capitalists" with significant capital investment who heeded the blowing winds?


As I understand it the CPC under Mao did not nationalise the factories of the 'patriotic' capitalists when they first took over, initially for political reasons, and later allowed them to persist alongside state owned industry as a contribution
to economic growth. Economic growth during the 50s was actually reasonably rapid, though the bulk of the industrialisation took place in the state sector.
Then in the 60s the remaining factories were nationalised.

Paul, you claimed the period of alliance with the national bourgeoisie ended in the 1960s. When I stated that period did not lead to the rapid industrialization of the country, you flipped the script to talk about the post 4 reforms period.

That economic growth in the 50s was "reasonably rapid" isn't the point. The country was not industrialized during this period. Simple question: when did the urban population in China exceed the rural population? That might give us a rough index to the success, the breadth of industrialization.



The Deng wing of the party wanted to continue the policies of the 50s, and
in my view, there was a significant fraction of the CP leadership that remained
sympathetic to the national bourgeoisie so long as these contributed to the
development of the economy : this is what the black or white cat refers to.

This position obviously won out again in the 1980s and a policy much more favourable to private agriculture and private industry was adopted.

So there was a national bourgeoisie all throughout the post-revolutionary period? Even after nationalization of their capital in the 1960s? How did this national capitalist class reproduce itself without any access to the means of production, to private ownership of the means of production? Unless of course, the Chinese revolution was never a socialist revolution but a variant of capitalism? Unless the nationalization of certain aspects of the economy was a mechanism to do for the bourgeoisie what they couldn't do for themselves.

You make the call.


If there is no alliance with the national bourgeoisie, why were CP rules changed to allow capitalists to join the party?

What was the 'get rich is glorious' slogan but an alliance with the national bourgeoisie?

No, slogans, and rule changes do not prove the pre-existence of the class, but rather are attempts to encourage creation of such a class. Do I think the bureaucracy administers the impulse to capitalist restoration? You bet I do. Do I think Deng and others wanted to create a bourgeoisie? Absolutely.



According to
Sources of Chinese economic growth, 1978-1996 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x0Ef1yc7PG0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=sources+of+chinese+economic+growth&ots=JUNmFX1ckO&sig=PexdSKi8W0phnsNm2aRQnMspNfw)


C Bramall

A major source of the economic growth in the post 1978 period was the prior development of a workforce with the skills and aptitudes required for modern industry during the previous period. The opening to foreign investment certainly gave them access to modern - primarily Japanese and Taiwanese production technology and methods of industrial organisation, and from the 1990s on involved a shift to an export led growth model starting with the yuan devaluations of the early 90s.


Nothing personal, but what bullshit. Skills and aptitudes? That's why the employment in the SEZ of the Guangdong was of high-school girls "coming out" with basically the only skill capitalism requires-- labor power-- to work in low tech textile, assembly, "snap and pack" jobs.




The consequences of this has been that China began to run significant trade surpluses and become a net capital exporter. The Chinese state now holds sufficient reserves of dollars to easily buy out the US and Japanese firms there should it so chose.


Should they choose? Sorry about that, buying out with those reserves really isn't an option, since those reserves are in fact the reserves generated by the FDI, FOE's to begin with, which is why China is so circumspect about what it does with that $2 trillion or so in foreign reserves-- which is why it didn't deploy those reserves in its stimulus program of 2009 but rather relied on debt creation.

Expropriation? Yeah that's a definite option. Watch what happens when and if China tries that.



But the process has led to the reconstitution of a national bourgoisie and a sharp polarisation of incomes within China. There are now over half a million millionaires there, which constitutes a significant national bourgeoisie. With this growth in wealth grows political influence.

No argument there.



Perhaps you could clarify what you consider to be the differences.

I already did Paul. The NEP was not a low wage, high FDI program. The NEP was not an export driven program.

Maquiladoras, comrade. The difference is in the maquiladoras, which were not the thrust of the NEP, and which certainly was the thrust of the Deng initiated policies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That individual capitalist enterprises, that numbers of individual capitalist enterprises are preserved, allowed to function, does not make the individual capitalists a class of national capitalists, organized socially as such a class. That's the point. If the "national capitalists" had such an organization as a class it certainly was allied with the KMT and with international capital. The fragments of capitalism and capitalists that remained don't quite achieve the organization necessary to organizing themselves as an actual social class. This is not a political attribute, but a function of the economic organization.

There are no purely bourgeois parties in terms of demographics. The bourgeoisie get their way via manipulation of two big parties whose demographics are some combination of small-business owners and unproductive elements of the 19th-century petit-bourgeoisie (self-employed service providers, private security guards, cops, lawyers, judges, etc.).

[Paul Cockshott]

I already did Paul. The NEP was not a low wage, high FDI program. The NEP was not an export driven program.

Maquiladoras, comrade. The difference is in the maquiladoras, which were not the thrust of the NEP, and which certainly was the thrust of the Deng initiated policies.

Well the NEP only lasted a few years. The Chinese model did not shift to export led growth until the devaluation of the Yuan in the 90s. If the NEP had continued, it would have generated interest groups within the state that would have promoted further capitalist development. The economic circumstances of the late 20s early 30s would not have been propitious for an export led growth strategy given the world slump and general rise in tariff barriers. My contention is that both represented a compromise with capitalist economic forms which if continued for more than a very short period constitutes an alliance with bourgeois interests.

[Paul Cockshott]

Should they choose? Sorry about that, buying out with those reserves really isn't an option, since those reserves are in fact the reserves generated by the FDI, FOE's to begin with, which is why China is so circumspect about what it does with that $2 trillion or so in foreign reserves-- which is why it didn't deploy those reserves in its stimulus program of 2009 but rather relied on debt creation.

First I would dispute that the reserves are generally the property of foreign firms, for two reasons
1) A significant portion of exports by Chinese state and private firms.
2) The reserves arise when a firm in receipt of dollars, euro, yen from exports changes these into yuan. Why should a US or Japanese firm choose to hold its profits in yuan rather than dollars and yen. It only makes sense for a Chinese state or private firm to do this.

I have not checked to see if the China statistical yearbook provides details of who holds the yuan deposits that match these reserves, if my experience of working with it in the past is anything to go by, I doubt that it provides this level of detail.

Can you cite sources to back up your claim that the yuan deposits are mainly held by overseas firms?

[Paul Cockshott]

Nothing personal, but what bullshit. Skills and aptitudes? That's why the employment in the SEZ of the Guangdong was of high-school girls "coming out" with basically the only skill capitalism requires-- labor power-- to work in low tech textile, assembly, "snap and pack" jobs.


So you think that the only skills required by capitalist industry are low tech assembly ones?
If so why prefer investing in China to Burkina Faso or the Congo?

What about the engineers and architects to design the factory buildings, the electricians and skilled trades to build them, the technicians to install and maintain the equipment, the pcb and circuit designers who design the boards that go into electronic products, the mould makers who design and make the plastic moulds etc, etc.
This requires an educated population. In 2005 some 57% of the Chinese population were high school graduates, not as high as in the US at 75% admitedly, but given the greater Chinese population there were a lot more high school graduates there than in the US.
26% of the working population had completed tertiary education against 44% in the US, again not such a high percentage, but a much larger total number of university graduates.

[Fabrizio]

So are Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and all of the NATO countries "second-world" countries now?

Funnilly enough, a lot of their left say something along those lines.

sounds dubious to me of course but it's not an unheard of position.

[S.Artesian]

So you think that the only skills required by capitalist industry are low tech assembly ones?
If so why prefer investing in China to Burkina Faso or the Congo?

What about the engineers and architects to design the factory buildings, the electricians and skilled trades to build them, the technicians to install and maintain the equipment, the pcb and circuit designers who design the boards that go into electronic products, the mould makers who design and make the plastic moulds etc, etc.
This requires an educated population. In 2005 some 57% of the Chinese population were high school graduates, not as high as in the US at 75% admitedly, but given the greater Chinese population there were a lot more high school graduates there than in the US.
26% of the working population had completed tertiary education against 44% in the US, again not such a high percentage, but a much larger total number of university graduates.


No, what I think is that initial construction was done under the design and supervision of Taiwanese, Japanese, etc. overseers. What I think is that Chinese construction practices were pretty problematic for the initial wave of FDI. Rather than take that chance, the FDI enterprises imposed their own standards. I think that for years, China's electric grid and other infrastructure was not able to support, without frequent failure, the massive demands the FDI placed on it.

I think initial installations of equipment were done by the FDI companies utilizing their own trained technicians, or those brought in from other advanced countries.

I think 80% of China's high-tech exports are the product of the FDI enterprises. I think China's "value added" to hi-tech exports, in terms of both materials [microprocessors] and design, like for example I-Pods, is minimal.

I also think some of this has changed in 30 years, like copying the technology for hi speed trainsets from Germany, France, Japan, years after awarding them the contracts to build the first trainsets in China.

You seem to have a problem keeping things in chronological order. We were talking about the initial expansion of FDI in Deng' 4 reforms, not what's been going on since 2003.

Earlier you couldn't keep the "new democracy, 'rapid' industrialization" 1960s apart from the post 4 reform industrialization.
_____________

Now as for those foreign reserves-- why keep them in yuan? It's not the companies that keep them in yuan, it's the companies who deposit the dollars in their accounts with financial institutions which by law in China are not allowed to retain dollars but must exchange them for yuan with the central bank.

Secondly, the dollars are kept overseas in yuan denominated accounts in order to avoid taxes upon repatriation. Nobody knows how much in total US companies keep overseas accounts but there are some individual examples-- like Cisco which keeps $4 billion in cash, and cash type assets, in the US, and about $29 billion in overseas accounts. Now I'm not saying Cisco is representative of all companies, but right now US nonfinancial companies have $1.93 trillion in cash assets held in the US.

So let's just say the proportion of cash assets held abroad is 1/7 the ratio of Cisco's foreign to domestic assets-- that's another $1.9 trillion.

Now that's all speculation-- but what is not speculation is this: that once you adjust the US trade numbers for related party trading-- that is exchanges between companies abroad and at home that are subsidiaries of a mother company-- the US trade deficit between 2004 and 2007 drops dramatically and can be explained completely by the change in price of a single commodity-- oil.

So can I prove that those foreign reserves are the product of the FDI companies? No. But given the laws in China, given the low proportion of value added to high tech exports, given the extremely low profit margins of many of China's middle and smaller industries-- so small that China itself has stated a significant rise in the renminbi could destabilize the economy, I find this argument about China's clout, it's leverage in holding so much in US Tsy instruments, and other currencies, to be so much meowing from a paper tiger.

As for the NEP-- the issue isn't how long it lasted, but what it's goal was. And that was not the same goal as enunciated and demonstrated in the period that has followed 4 reforms.

If the NEP had expanded, if it had lasted longer... if what? There would have been interest groups, different proto-class formations, different approaches to what is to be done next? Really? Well guess what did happen? There were different groups, different proto-class formations, and the struggle was one over the pace of industrialization. Those arguing for the necessity of rapid industrialization were anti-NEP-- realized that the NEP would never provide a mechanism for that industrialization. Those for the NEP were for maintaining the agricultural dominance in the economy.

Does that sound anything like the "low wage, fdi" policy of China? Where was the massive migration to cities in the NEP? When and how could there have been massive migration to the cities under the NEP? Only if the system of the NEP collapsed.

How you can ignore the critical, social, distinction is almost unbelievable.

If..if..if.. if the NEP this, the NEP that... if people in hell had ice water they wouldn't be so hot and thirsty. But they don't. And they are.

[Paul Cockshott]

Secondly, the dollars are kept overseas in yuan denominated accounts in order to avoid taxes upon repatriation. Nobody knows how much in total US companies keep overseas accounts but there are some individual examples-- like Cisco which keeps $4 billion in cash, and cash type assets, in the US, and about $29 billion in overseas accounts. Now I'm not saying Cisco is representative of all companies, but right now US nonfinancial companies have $1.93 trillion in cash assets held in the US.

So let's just say the proportion of cash assets held abroad is 1/7 the ratio of Cisco's foreign to domestic assets-- that's another $1.9 trillion.

Do you have evidence that Ciscos overseas holdings are in Yuan?
Do you have any published estimates of the Yuan holdings by US companies?

I doubt your estimates, but if they are right they would indicate that CISCO was a predominantly Chinese capital, not an American one.

I would have thought that if you adjusted the US balance of trade for trade
between US companies and their overseas subsidiaries the balance would be worse, since companies like Wallmart are likely to get their Chinese subsidiary producers to under price in transfers to the US in order to transfer funds to the metropolitan company.

If they are not doing that, but the reverse, then you are arguing that these firms are in effect primarily Chinese capitals seeking to self expand capital in the form of Yuan, and the concessions to them by the Chinese state now constitute concessions to national capital.

[S.Artesian]

Do you have evidence that Ciscos overseas holdings are in Yuan?
Do you have any published estimates of the Yuan holdings by US companies?

I doubt your estimates, but if they are right they would indicate that CISCO was a predominantly Chinese capital, not an American one.

I would have thought that if you adjusted the US balance of trade for trade
between US companies and their overseas subsidiaries the balance would be worse, since companies like Wallmart are likely to get their Chinese subsidiary producers to under price in transfers to the US in order to transfer funds to the metropolitan company.

If they are not doing that, but the reverse, then you are arguing that these firms are in effect primarily Chinese capitals seeking to self expand capital in the form of Yuan, and the concessions to them by the Chinese state now constitute concessions to national capital.

I have no idea what you are talking about. US companies hold large amounts of currency overseas. That's the bottom line. They don't stuff it into mattresses; they don't put in wall safes; they keep large amounts in corporate accounts with financial institutions in the country where they do business.

In China, local and regional banks are not allowed to hold dollar accounts, or euro accounts for that matter but must remit those holdings to the central bank.

As I said nobody, not the US Dept of Commerce, not the US IRS, not the US BEA [run by the Dept of Commerce] knows how much is kept overseas, or at least will admit to knowing how much cash is kept overseas.

Cisco currently reports $35 billion in total cash assets, which is about 1/2 the corporations total assets. Some of these cash assets are in dollars, some are in dollar-denominated accounts overseas, others are in euros, sterling, yuan, yen. And I'm sure the CFO spends lots of time taking positions in currency markets to hedge risk. That's what corporations do. And that's why they do it.

The ownership of the company is not determined by where it parks its cash.

And I don't understand what you are referring to in related-party trading.

The way the US Dept of Commerce tracks this figure is say... Intel ships fabrication machinery to a subsidiary in Singapore, or Canada, or Germany. This counts as an export, as a positive in balance of trade figures. Now when Intel ships the microprocessors produced by that fabrication plant back into the US, that counts as an import, a negative in the balance of trade. Given the nature of capitalist production, where the fixed instruments give their value up only incrementally over time, and do so only in the process of valorisation, of expanding value, the value of imported microprocessors will exceed the value of exported fabrication machinery.

The Intel plant in Singapore or Germany etc. get X dollars from the mother company in the US, but it has to pay its workers in local currencies; pays its suppliers in the local currency. Intel subsidiaries have relationships with financial institutions in Singapore or Germany or wherever to exchange currency. Those US dollars wind up in the Singapore or Bundesbank etc.

Now tell me, does that make Singapore or Germany the owner of Intel? Does that make the transaction between mother and subsidy a real deficit in the trade accounts? Does it amount to a real transfer of wealth "away" from Intel, and "away" for the US?

When the US Dept. of Commerce adjusts for related-party trading, it takes all those exchanges out of the calculations; it also eliminates the exchanges between US-based subsidiaries of foreign countries and their mother companies.

So what's left? Like I said, between 2004-2007 a trade deficit that is half what the usual numbers are, and that correlates almost exactly in proportion to the increase in the price of oil.

[hardlinecommunist]

That's what I'm thinking. The local party, who I'm in the process of joining has the idea that this would be necessary in Australia, and see the national bourgeoisie as a force to be allied with the people and I simply don't agree.
Which Party in Australia were you in the process of joining and do you stll plan to join

[S.Artesian]

That's what I'm thinking. The local party, who I'm in the process of joining has the idea that this would be necessary in Australia, and see the national bourgeoisie as a force to be allied with the people and I simply don't agree.

Better idea... don't join that party. If you don't accept their "class line," or lack thereof, if you don't buy their class collaboration, you shouldn't join.

[Paul Cockshott]

Artesian, your original claim was that the Chinese government did not have the option of buying out foreign capital investments in China with its dollar reserves because its reserves were already largely yuan offset by liabilities to foreign companies. It transpires that you have not been able to cite any evidence to support this.

You are able to show that Cisco holds substantial overseas deposits, but you have no evidence to support your belief that these are held in Chinese banks rather than in London Frankfurt or Tokyo..

So it remains an unsupported belief on your part.

Can you please cite figures and sources for what you are claiming about the US trade account.

[S.Artesian]

Artesian, your original claim was that the Chinese government did not have the option of buying out foreign capital investments in China with its dollar reserves because its reserves were already largely yuan offset by liabilities to foreign companies. It transpires that you have not been able to cite any evidence to support this.

You are able to show that Cisco holds substantial overseas deposits, but you have no evidence to support your belief that these are held in Chinese banks rather than in London Frankfurt or Tokyo..

So it remains an unsupported belief on your part.

Can you please cite figures and sources for what you are claiming about the US trade account.

Cockshott.... I can show you that the S&P 500 have scads of cash in accounts outside the US. As I stated explicitly I cannot show how much of that is in China.

I infer what I said about the hard currency reserves in China based on a number of items: the laws in China; the source of hi-tech foreign currency earnings, etc. I freely said I cannot prove it.

As for unsupported beliefs, here are a few of yours, which you conveniently drop from the conversation when it suits you.

1. That the initial FDI in China was based upon, and required, a skill set of the Chinese proletariat to support construction of the factories, design and implementation of circuit boards processors, etc.

2. A significant number of Chinese exports are from state and Chinese firms. Of course, we have no idea what a significant number is. Is it significant in terms of profit margins? Is it significant in terms of contributing the lion's share of the $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves China has? I don't know, either. I suspect that a significant number of those state firms are actually operating at a loss; that another significant number of those Chinese firms are providing little in terms of profit, profit margins, earnings, and "value added"-- and thus little to foreign currency reserves-- based on reports of how much "value added" is contained in exports like Ipods etc. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has some studies of this, which I will be more than happy to track down and provide a link to.

3. You claim that China's post 4 reforms period parallels, in essence, the NEP. You have provided exactly zero information about changes in the fSU economy under the NEP that would support such a claim.

4. You have stated that the slogans of the CPC in the post 4 reforms period were designed to lure or welcome or something an existing national bourgeoisie back into an alliance with the CPC. You have failed to provide any examples of such a national bourgeois, a national capital actually functioning in China at the time those slogans were first advanced.

5. In response to my pointing out the distinctions between the NEP and the "new democracy, where the "new democracy" collaboration is rationalized as providing rapid industrial growth, you stated that the CPC allowed the national bourgeoisie to maintain their ownership of "their" factories in the 50s and 60s as a contribution to economic growth. You have not provided any examples of this. You also stated that economic growth in the 1950s was "reasonably rapid," without providing any indication that the country itself was industrialized, that the predominant contribution to GDP moved away from the agricultural sector; or that the population in China became predominantly urban, as the "argument" for new democracy would suggest.

So, let me repeat, as I have explicitly stated [and I think more than once] I cannot prove how much of China's $2 trillion in foreign currency instruments are derived from deposits made by foreign direct investment companies, or the subsidiaries of FDI companies. I infer, conclude, surmise "a significant portion" of those reserves are based on those deposits given the fact that China's growth has been, unlike the NEP, export-led; based on foreign direct investment in industry; with exports amounting to, over a significant period of time, a significant part [30-40 percent? That sticks in my mind, not sure though] of GDP and with FDI companies accounting for 80% of hi-tech export earnings, and a "significant amount" of export earnings in general.

All of that suggests to me that China isn't about to "buy out" the foreign companies with these foreign currency reserves.


As for related party trading-- look at the Statistical Abstract of the US.

Figures on related parted trading can be found here (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/exports_and_imports.html)


For 2008, related party imports account for 48.5 percent of all imports; related party exports account for about 25 percent of all exports. If you adjust the gross figure by the related party figures-- the US trade deficit drops from about $700 billion to about $200 billion.

[Paul Cockshott]

As for unsupported beliefs, here are a few of yours, which you conveniently drop from the conversation when it suits you.
1. That the initial FDI in China was based upon, and required, a skill set of the Chinese proletariat to support construction of the factories, design and implementation of circuit boards processors, etc.


I cited Bramall's opinion in his substantial book on the sources of Chinese economic growth that the most important source of the rapid growth in the 80s onwards was the prior development both of industry and skill levels in the earlier period. I was not giving it as my opinion, but citing the view of a significant researcher on the topic.
Bramall gives particular emphasis to the role of the Third Front policy of developing industrial centers in the heartland of China, far from potential Russian or American invasion, as a factor in the subsequent development.

In his subsequent book 'The industrialisation of Rural China' he gives greater emphasis to the achievements of the combined agricultural industrial system in communes as a factor in the subsequent industrialisation of the Chinese countryside.




2. A significant number of Chinese exports are from state and Chinese firms. Of course, we have no idea what a significant number is. Is it significant in terms of profit margins? Is it significant in terms of contributing the lion's share of the $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves China has? I don't know, either. I suspect that a significant number of those state firms are actually operating at a loss; that another significant number of those Chinese firms are providing little in terms of profit, profit margins, earnings, and "value added"-- and thus little to foreign currency reserves-- based on reports of how much "value added" is contained in exports like Ipods etc. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has some studies of this, which I will be more than happy to track down and provide a link to.

You appear to be using 'value added' in the sense of Mehrwert or surplus value. The value added in terms of the labour theory of value is not the profit margin, but the increase in the value of the product contributed by labour.
That aside, the rate off profit accross China as a whole has been high, though it is falling as a result of the rising organic composition of capital. If I could find a way of uploading pdfs to this site I will put up the results of some analyses that I have recently done.




3. You claim that China's post 4 reforms period parallels, in essence, the NEP. You have provided exactly zero information about changes in the fSU economy under the NEP that would support such a claim.

I labelled the post 79 policy a long term NEP because it, like the NEP


involved a reliance of private peasant agriculture producing for the market
involved a strategic retreat to market relations more generally

It occured in a different country, in a very different world economy so it was obviously not identical but in my view there are marked similarities between Bukharins and Deng's agricultural policies.



4. You have stated that the slogans of the CPC in the post 4 reforms period were designed to lure or welcome or something an existing national bourgeoisie back into an alliance with the CPC. You have failed to provide any examples of such a national bourgeois, a national capital actually functioning in China at the time those slogans were first advanced.

My view is that a social class does not cease to exist as soon as the property relations on which it was based are done away with. The families who were members of the old propertied classes still existed, they still had connections and influence, more particularly when the policy of repressing these families that had been followed during the cultural revolution was dropped.



5. In response to my pointing out the distinctions between the NEP and the "new democracy, where the "new democracy" collaboration is rationalized as providing rapid industrial growth, you stated that the CPC allowed the national bourgeoisie to maintain their ownership of "their" factories in the 50s and 60s as a contribution to economic growth.

I had never argued that the purpose of the alliance with the national bourgeoisie had been to promote rapid industrialisation. It was essentially a political manoeuvre. The private factories contributed to the growth of the Chinese economy during the 50s, but as I understand it, they were a relatively minor contribution.





You have not provided any examples of this. You also stated that economic growth in the 1950s was "reasonably rapid," without providing any indication that the country itself was industrialized, that the predominant contribution to GDP moved away from the agricultural sector; or that the population in China became predominantly urban, as the "argument" for new democracy would suggest.

I have never claimed that the economy was industrialised during the 1950s, it was industrialising, but the major contribution to this was probably the Soviet aid programme.



So, let me repeat, as I have explicitly stated [and I think more than once] I cannot prove how much of China's $2 trillion in foreign currency instruments are derived from deposits made by foreign direct investment companies, or the subsidiaries of FDI companies. I infer, conclude, surmise "a significant portion" of those reserves are based on those deposits given the fact that China's growth has been, unlike the NEP, export-led; based on foreign direct investment in industry; with exports amounting to, over a significant period of time, a significant part [30-40 percent? That sticks in my mind, not sure though] of GDP and with FDI companies accounting for 80% of hi-tech export earnings, and a "significant amount" of export earnings in general.

All of that suggests to me that China isn't about to "buy out" the foreign companies with these foreign currency reserves.

I dont think they are about to do so either, I just said that they could.
I think that right now, they probably still think they are not yet in a position to take over the R&D functions of the foreign companies producing there. So the reserves are more likely to be used to buy up international firms or sections of firms in order to aquire the technology that way as with IBMs whole PC business being bought by Lenovo, Austin Rover and Volvo being bought out by Shanghai Motor and Geely.

China does have a large but not exceeptionally large export sector, at official exchange rates it is about 25% of GDP which is about the same as the UK exports as a share of GDP, but at purchasing power parity exports are only about 13% in China, so one should not forget that the great bulk of Chinese production is for domestic use.




As for related party trading-- look at the Statistical Abstract of the US.

Figures on related parted trading can be found here (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/exports_and_imports.html)


.
Ok I will try and look at them.

[S.Artesian]

I cited Bramall's opinion in his substantial book on the sources of Chinese economic growth that the most important source of the rapid growth in the 80s onwards was the prior development both of industry and skill levels in the earlier period. I was not giving it as my opinion, but citing the view of a significant researcher on the topic.
Bramall gives particular emphasis to the role of the Third Front policy of developing industrial centers in the heartland of China, far from potential Russian or American invasion, as a factor in the subsequent development.


In his subsequent book 'The industrialisation of Rural China' he gives greater emphasis to the achievements of the combined agricultural industrial system in communes as a factor in the subsequent industrialisation of the Chinese countryside.


The assertion is made, but not supported in the paragraph you cite. And while developing industrial centers in the heartland may have been a strategy, the initial waves of industrialization where in the SEZ of the Guangdong, the Pearl River with access to Hong Kong and Shanghai.




I labelled the post 79 policy a long term NEP because it, like the NEP


involved a reliance of private peasant agriculture producing for the market
involved a strategic retreat to market relations more generally

It occured in a different country, in a very different world economy so it was obviously not identical but in my view there are marked similarities between Bukharins and Deng's agricultural policies.


Again you assert this superficial similarity rather than ignore substantive, qualitative difference, which was conscious adoption of a low wage strategy to attract foreign capital for industrialization.


My view is that a social class does not cease to exist as soon as the property relations on which it was based are done away with. The families who were members of the old propertied classes still existed, they still had connections and influence, more particularly when the policy of repressing these families that had been followed during the cultural revolution was dropped.

Does the class cease to exist when socialism is declared to have been achieved? When the "socialist stage" of Mao's 2 step is consummated?


I had never argued that the purpose of the alliance with the national bourgeoisie had been to promote rapid industrialisation. It was essentially a political manoeuvre. The private factories contributed to the growth of the Chinese economy during the 50s, but as I understand it, they were a relatively minor contribution.


You may not argue that, but that is part of the official doctrine and rationalization-- supposedly there is an economic necessity requiring this alliance.

I have never claimed that the economy was industrialised during the 1950s, it was industrialising, but the major contribution to this was probably the Soviet aid programme.


You never claimed it, but in response to my point that China was not industrialized by this supposed alliance with the national bourgeoisie you stated that "economic growth" was reasonably rapid, thus obscuring the central issue by providing another vague similarity as you also do with your linkage of the NEP to the post 4 reforms course in China.



China does have a large but not exceeptionally large export sector, at official exchange rates it is about 25% of GDP which is about the same as the UK exports as a share of GDP, but at purchasing power parity exports are only about 13% in China, so one should not forget that the great bulk of Chinese production is for domestic use.


The export sector has declined from its previous peak levels which were around 33% of GDP. One should also not forget that the great bulk of Chinese production contributes nothing to that accumulation of foreign currency reserves which supposedly makes China such a juggernaut, despite having an agricultural sector with average plot sizes of less than 2 acres... etc etc etc.

[Paul Cockshott]

The assertion is made, but not supported in the paragraph you cite. And while developing industrial centers in the heartland may have been a strategy, the initial waves of industrialization where in the SEZ of the Guangdong, the Pearl River with access to Hong Kong and Shanghai.

I think Bramall's point is that the generality of reports on Chinese industrialisation ignore the extent of industrialisation of the interior that had already taken place.



Again you assert this superficial similarity rather than ignore substantive, qualitative difference, which was conscious adoption of a low wage strategy to attract foreign capital for industrialization.
Well it is a matter of opinion whether the extended reproduction of market capitalist relations of production is a mere superficial matter.





Does the class cease to exist when socialism is declared to have been achieved? When the "socialist stage" of Mao's 2 step is consummated?
According to Mao it certainly does, he held that under socialism classes and class struggle still exist. The socialist stage of the revolution started with the agricultural cooperation movement, and was fairly well underway by the end of the 60s with establishment of the communes.





You may not argue that, but that is part of the official doctrine and rationalization-- supposedly there is an economic necessity requiring this alliance.

Where and when did Mao argue this. Was it before or after the start of Soviet aid.



You never claimed it, but in response to my point that China was not industrialized by this supposed alliance with the national bourgeoisie you stated that "economic growth" was reasonably rapid, thus obscuring the central issue by providing another vague similarity as you also do with your linkage of the NEP to the post 4 reforms course in China.
You may think that it a central issue, but since I dont think there was in the 50s any policy to the effect that the private capitalist sector would make a major contribution to industrialisation. The main strategy for industrialisation was to set up a Soviet style planned state economy with Soviet aid.





The export sector has declined from its previous peak levels which were around 33% of GDP. One should also not forget that the great bulk of Chinese production contributes nothing to that accumulation of foreign currency reserves which supposedly makes China such a juggernaut, despite having an agricultural sector with average plot sizes of less than 2 acres... etc etc etc.I dont think China publishes its i/o tables, but I suspect from experience with other i/o tables, that you would find that many sectors of the Chinese industrial base contribute indirectly to the value of exports.

[S.Artesian]

Just one point about the 4 Reforms period and comparing it to the NEP:

There is no great time lag between the "agricultural" phase of the 4 reforms, i.e. the incentive to the peasantry to "get rich," and the effort to attract foreign capital to SEZs.

The 4 reforms are enacted in 1979. The first SEZ, Shenzen, is established by 1980. And in 1982 [or 1983, I forget which], various requirements of the labor code are "waived" for SEZs.

No such rapid shift in the NEP occurs.

The rest of comrade Cockshott's comments, I'll leave to the readers to sort through and evaluate.

But what I want to point out here is simply this-- according to comrade Cockshott, the state sector even in bourgeois economies represents a socialized sector of the economy. Hence comrade Cockshott has argued that "labor Britain"-- post WW2 and pre-Thatcher-- was perhaps "1/3 socialist." The quotation marks are there because I believe that was exactly his characterization.

I believe he has also argued that the former East Germany or Czechoslovakia were maybe 98% socialist.

So let's just briefly look at this claim for the economies previously known as "socialist," [no relation to the artist previously known as the artist previously known as Prince].

You have economies supposedly 98% socialist, in China's case maybe even more than that by 1972, and

1) despite the overwhelming socialist organization of the economy-- classes persist. And not just any classes, but an actual bourgeoisie exists.

2) In China's case, despite the overwhelming socialist organization of the economy the socialism proves incapable of industrializing the country; of fundamentally reorganizing agriculture so that small-plot labor intensive cultivation is transformed into larger area capital intensive cultivation; of matching, in fact, the amplification of labor productivity that industrialization both creates and requires.

3. Consequently, the "socialist state" itself begins the introduction, and organization of capitalism, and the creation of a bourgeoisie. In the case of the fSU and some of its European allies, the introduction involves, the destruction of assets, an actual deindustrialization, lowering of living standards, and in essence the practice of social "arson."

4.In China, the course is different, involving what we might call a "controlled burn" of the old organization of the economy through low-wage, high FDI programs.

In both cases a supposedly "socialist" economy creates its negation, so to speak, capitalism. How can a socialist economy create capitalism? What is the necessity for the socialist state to create capitalism?

There has to be a specific organization of labor for the creation of socialism from capitalism; for the negation of capitalism, and the overthrow of its personification in capitalists, by the proletariat.

That specific organization of labor, wage-labor, is absolutely necessary for the reproduction of capital as capital, for the maintenance and expansion of capitalism. This is why we talk about capitalism creating the conditions for its own overthrow. It must reproduce this condition of labor to even be capitalism.

So what is that specific organization of labor, under socialism-- indeed what is that socialist organization of labor, that necessarily creates, strengthens, deepens capital, and capitalism in its very midst?

To pose the question, I think, shows us how nonsensical, literally, Maoism is; how absurd their claim to "socialism" truly is.

[Paul Cockshott]

Since these questions raised by Artesian go well beyond the immediate context of the discussion and take us to the question of what people mean by the word socialism I will start a new thread to deal with it.

[S.Artesian]

No, these questions don't go beyond the context of this discussion. So for those on this thread I will post my response to comrade Cockshott's new thread [which is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/meanings-word-socialism-t147823/index.html)] on this thread:

First, I don't think there was any reason to split this off from its original thread--which was about Maoism supporting a "national bourgeoisie."

Secondly, I never stated anywhere that previous struggle for socialism were nonsensical. I said Maoism as a "theory," and in particular Maoism's "alliance" with a national bourgeoisie is non-sensical. That's one more reason not to have split the thread.

Thirdly, note the comrade Cockshott does not answer the critical questions raised in the post or in the original thread:

1. what is the economic purpose, rationale for allying with the national bourgeoisie?
2. Is that "purpose" achieved in the alliance with the national bourgeoisie?
3. How can socialism economically reproduce classes based on specific relations to the means of production when scientific socialism, as Marx and Engels distinguish it, is the process by which classes are abolished because production is for need, not profit, and scarcity is eliminated?
4. How is that supposed socialisms, proclaiming themselves as scientifically socialist in the tradition of Marx and Engels not only produce classes, but actually create the means for their own decomposition and overthrow?

Now I will point out that the comrade Cockshott's statement:


In addition the socialist movement has historically advocated a distribution of income that is not just based on market principles but is modified on the basis of need.
To which he subscribes:

When I use the word socialism I use it in this general sense of the varying but similar goals of the historical socialist movement.
has very little to Marx's conception of scientific socialism, the reappropriation of social labor on a social basis by a "free association of producers."

It might have something to do with the history of the UK Labor Party, the Webbs, the Fabians, Bernstein, with the social-democrats of Europe pre and post WW2, Dubcek, the "human face to socialism," Michael Harrington and the DSA, Robert Reich and "left-Democrats" but it has nothing to do with Marx's critique of capital and the immanent tendencies within capitalism for its own overthrow and replacement.

And with that, I will take a copy of this reply and post it back on the original thread, where these questions were appropriately raised.

[S.Artesian]

Artesian, your original claim was that the Chinese government did not have the option of buying out foreign capital investments in China with its dollar reserves because its reserves were already largely yuan offset by liabilities to foreign companies. It transpires that you have not been able to cite any evidence to support this.

You are able to show that Cisco holds substantial overseas deposits, but you have no evidence to support your belief that these are held in Chinese banks rather than in London Frankfurt or Tokyo..

So it remains an unsupported belief on your part.

Can you please cite figures and sources for what you are claiming about the US trade account.

Though it's been awhile, some might remember the discussion over China's foreign reserves, and my contention that they were generated by export earnings which were, more rather than less, generated by the FDI sector, and thus China was not really at liberty to use those reserves however it wished, for political or economic purposes.

I freely admitted then, and still state, I cannot prove my contention. But if you open up today's [January 18] Financial Times on page 7 you can read this:


"China's foreign exchange reserves cannot be regarded as a tool of financial power," Xiao Gang, chairman of the state-owned Bank of China argued in a recent essay. "The reserves are actually a manifestation of the country's balance sheet, and not real wealth."

Mr. Xiao was alluding to a process that, according to detractors, is simply a variant of the US Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing....

In China, the central bank prints money [yuan] to buy the foreign exchange generated by the country's exporters. While the motive is different--to peg the renminbi to the dollar at what many believe is an undervalued rate--the result is the same.

As Mr. Xiao, puts it, the policy comes "at the cost of pouring huge amounts of base money into the domestic market."

...."Despite China's desire to break out of reliance on US Treasuries...there just isn't another market that can absorb the level of inflows currently going into Chinese reserves.."

Which brings me to an interesting consideration. Time was I used to think it was China's "reflation" that ended the 2001-2003 recession and kick-started the next round of gouge, kick, bite, cheat. Now I think it was the US-- sinking the dollar, turning govt. budget surplus into deficit, signing the blank check for the big war in Iraq, that put all that paper out there.