China opening "Economic Zones" in DPRK

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201169144353453229.html


China and North Korea have formally started construction of two joint economic zones near their border, on the North Korean islands of Hwanggumpyong and Wihwa on the west, and the Rajin-Sonbong area on the east.
Ceremonies marking the start of the projects took place during consultations held in China's northeastern provinces of Liaoning and Jilin from Tuesday to Thursday, the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
The sides agreed that the economic zones should be developed along "government-guided, enterprise-based and market-oriented" principles, the ministry said.
Present at the event were: Chen Deming, the Chinese commerce minister; Jang Song-thaek, the vice-chairman of North Korea's powerful National Defence Commission and brother-in-law of the North's leader Kim Jong Il; and various officials of the local district councils, it said.
The officials said the ceremony was held "in the historical period [following a recent visit to China (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/05/20105433241153105.html) by] Kim Jong Il ... recording a new chapter in the history of the traditional DPRK-China friendship", North Korea's official KCNA news agency reported, also on Thursday.
DPRK refers to North Korea's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Elusive projects
Little is known about plans for the development projects and what they will have to offer.
Both countries have divulged little information, save for the fact that the zones will improve freight transportation by opening up access to sea for China's northeast provinces.
The Hwanggumpyong and Wihwa Islands on the Yalu River near the Chinese city of Dandong, have "favourable conditions for emerging a world trade and investment hub connecting Northeast Asia with Europe and North America," officials said in their congratulatory remarks, KCNA reported.
"... it is linked with the DPRK, China and Russia bordering on the Tumen River and has [the] East Sea.
"Smooth progress in the joint development and operation of the zone would promote from a new angle the economic development, in not only the two countries but also Northeast Asia, and give affirmative effect on the global economic development," they said.
KCNA said that the ceremony at the Rajin-Sonbong special economic zone, often abbreviated as "Rason", broke ground for the construction of a road and a cement factory and saw the launch of Chinese domestic freight transportation via Rajin Port, and a private car tourism project as the first phase initiatives.
Rason, located near China's northeastern Yanbian county, could bring "about a turn in freight transit transportation and tourism by speedily solving the issue of electricity and winding up the projects for modernization of Rajin Port and reconstruction of Rajin Port-Wonjong road through positive cooperation within this year," the report said.
Unclear prospects
The joint projects follow Kim's visit to China last month, his third within a year, which was seen a sign of desperation for the reclusive North's ailing economy.
Pyongyang has been hit by various UN sanctions, imposed after a May 2009 atomic test, in order to pressure it for a return to six-country nuclear talks.
China, the North's closest and most crucial ally, has pressed Kim to adopt changes to revitalise his nation's industry and agriculture, but is unclear how far he is willing to go.
Beijing has been careful to forestall the regime's collapse, as it could unleash political chaos and send waves of refugees across its border.
At the same time, China has increased its investment in improving the economy in its northeastern provinces along the border shared with North Korea, looking for a way to access the sea on the Korean peninsula's east, and allow transportation of goods.
North Korea has been attempting to follow the Chinese economic model, introducing various laws, tax breaks and special economic zones like the Rason, which was first established in 1991 to introduce foreign investment.
It attempted at a second special economic zone in the border city of Sinuiju, but the plan was abandoned after China arrested Yang Bin, the Dutch-Chinese businessman who was leading the project.


Aww, the state capital is getting hitched, how cute :rolleyes:. Market principles ... don't worry kiddies, the workers may be getting exploited, but at least Glorious Leader Kim and the Chinese state capitalists can still get their cognac!

[Demogorgon]

The leaders of two glorious working class states are uniting to drive forward the cause of socialism.

[Revolutionair]

http://www.china-hiking.com/tibet/PSL.JPG

"The workingmen all have the Chinese nationality, and they are proud of it."
- Karl Marx, hidden pages Communist Manifesto

[Kiev Communard]

This once again shows the fallacy of state socialism that pretends that the State takeover of means of production would somehow make a social formation non-exploitative, and also that of the so-called "anti-imperialism", which is actually just an attempt to portray all other capitalist powers opposing the U.S./the E.U. as somehow "good", while in fact, as this article among other things shows, the former are literally indistinguishable from the latter in their modus operandi. So much for the "workers' states"!

[piet11111]

Ah so North Korea is going to turn itself into a cheap labor country for chinese capitalism.

[Chimurenga.]

Aww, the state capital is getting hitched, how cute :rolleyes:. Market principles ... don't worry kiddies, the workers may be getting exploited, but at least Glorious Leader Kim and the Chinese state capitalists can still get their cognac!

So just how comfortable is your armchair?



*picture*

"The workingmen all have the Chinese nationality, and they are proud of it."
- Karl Marx, hidden pages Communist Manifesto

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that line. Perhaps you are an apologist for the Dalai Lama and Taiwan?

Edit: It's also pretty LOL that people assume "economic zone" strictly means private enterprises.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So just how comfortable is your armchair?

http://www.moccasin.com.au/messandnoise/pot-kettle.jpg


Ah so North Korea is going to turn itself into a cheap labor country for chinese capitalism.

That's what it looks like.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another thing is that there are lots of single young Chinese men who can't find wives (partly due to the single-child policy and partly due to the huge income gap in China today), so millions of women are being "imported" from North Korea into China, sometimes working as prostitutes.

[Kiev Communard]

So just how comfortable is your armchair?

And yours:D?





There is absolutely nothing wrong with that line. Perhaps you are an apologist for the Dalai Lama and Taiwan?

No, they are just as bad as Messrs. Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao.


Edit: It's also pretty LOL that people assume "economic zone" strictly means private enterprises.

Yes, because for "anti-imperialists", as long as a capitalist carries a CP member card, he is a revolutionary proletarian comrade. Here in Ukraine we have a plenty of those types, and as I saw in China in 2005, the Chinese "communist" capitalists are nothing better. In addition, I would like to remind you that even if these enterprises were not private (i.e. did not belong to individuals), they would still be exploitative, as workers would have no say over the production and would have to surrender their product to the members of proprietary capitalist class, even if the latter is organized as a singular centralized structure.

[Тачанка]

Edit: It's also pretty LOL that people assume "economic zone" strictly means private enterprises.

It does, and it's a very bad kind of private enterprise, for that matter.

[Chimurenga.]

http://www.moccasin.com.au/messandnoise/pot-kettle.jpg



Not exactly. See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member. Meanwhile you live on the internet and espouse your chauvinism all over this forum.

You're as much as an armchair reject as most of the users on this forum.

[Chimurenga.]

No, they are just as bad as Messrs. Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao.

Two puppets of the West are just as bad as Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao? Might I ask just what fucking planet you live on?

[Kiev Communard]

Two puppets of the West are just as bad as Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao? Might I ask just what fucking planet you live on?

On the planet which is dominated by different capitalist powers vying for dominance and mercilessly extracting surplus value from their exploited classes, wrapping this in the banner of "democracy" in the "West" (which is far from a monolithic unity, by the way) or "socialism" in "People's China" (which has already begun capital exports into Africa and Latin America, exploiting local proletarians without regard for their elementary rights). And where do you live, I wonder?

[Chimurenga.]

It does, and it's a very bad kind of private enterprise, for that matter.

Actually no. Special economic zones can have state-owned enterprises.

Also, the DPRK has had SEZ's before. It doesn't take away from the fact that they are still a workers state.

[Chimurenga.]

And where do you live, I wonder?

In the world where China still plays a progressive role in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Nigeria, Cuba and so on and in that, is in contrast to the United States. But who gives a damn about that, anyways? :rolleyes:

[Kiev Communard]

In the world where China still plays a progressive role in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Nigeria, Cuba and so on and in that, is in contrast to the United States. But who gives a damn about that, anyways? :rolleyes:

Tell me what this "progressive" role exactly consists in (save for selling its own military equipment for proprietary gains). I would be very glad to hear your point.

[Chimurenga.]

Tell me what this "progressive" role exactly consists in (save for selling its own military equipment for proprietary gains). I would be very glad to hear your point.

One example.

http://www.chinese-embassy.org.za/eng/zxxx/t318837.htm

vs

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09ABUJA1907.html

[Kiev Communard]

Actually no. Special economic zones can have state-owned enterprises.

I have already noted that from strictly historical materialist point of view the formal juridical type of ownership is irrelevant, the social content of its relationship is what determines the type of society, not the formal proclamations about "socialist" state property. Otherwise we would have to conclude, for instance, that Inca Empire with 100% state property on land was socialist, as well as a brutal Third Dynasty of Ur with its primitive system of central planning and absence of private property in land. At least the rulers of these ancient empires were more intellectually honest than Kim Jong-il and did not pretend that their serf-labourers supposedly "own" the state-run estates.

[caramelpence]

See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member

Yeah? Well I'm a member of the glorious vanguard of the proletariat that is fighting revolutionary war and is leading the massed ranks of the workers and peasants of the world to ever-greater victories in their struggles against revisionism, opportunism, and all forms of bourgeois decadence. I'm a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, in fact.

"I am the leader of the workers
And I'll tell you why the Left is suspect
Because there's something you don't understand
Only my line is correct
'Cause I am the vanguard of the masses
And all of you should just follow me
If you doubt my analysis
You must be in the petty bourgeoisie!"

Sing along, everyone!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not exactly. See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member. Meanwhile you live on the internet and espouse your chauvinism all over this forum.

You're as much as an armchair reject as most of the users on this forum.

Um, I dont live on the internet, I use the internet just like you do to check and post on this forum sometime. You're either a hypocrite, or you don't understand the principle of internet anonymity. Good for you, you are open about your PSL membership, I'm content to keep my political activities to myself that has nothing to do with the content of my post. I don't see it as relevant at all to whether or not SEZs are appropriate for two self-proclaimed socialist countries to set up.

Are you the enraged spirit of holier-than-thou lefties? Do you have any rational argument or is it limited to "I kool cuz I have party card"? Talk about chauvinism ... Are you a paid Chinese government spokesperson, or do you just have unquestioning loathing for anyone with anything critical to say about your favorite pet government?

[Kiev Communard]

One example.

http://www.chinese-embassy.org.za/eng/zxxx/t318837.htm

vs

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09ABUJA1907.html

So what? Currently the U.S. NASA cooperates with Brazil and Argentina in developing satellite for salinity measurements - http://www.kold.com/story/14868775/new-nasa-satellite-launches-thursday-morning Does it mean that the U.S. is interested in the development of the Brazilian/Argentinian science for its own sake? I am sure that PRC aided Nigerian government (which is extremely neoliberal and corrupt, by the way) for something more than simple "internationalism" (as your second link detailing the intrigues between Shell and Chinese state-run corporations over the rights of plunder of Nigeria's natural resources incidentally shows).

[agnixie]

Not exactly. See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member. Meanwhile you live on the internet and espouse your chauvinism all over this forum.

You're as much as an armchair reject as most of the users on this forum.

"I'm anthracite!" :rolleyes:


Actually no. Special economic zones can have state-owned enterprises.

Which is no more communist than capitalist-owned enterprises.

[Delenda Carthago]

China has economic zones worldwide. They are called "china towns".

[caramelpence]

China has economic zones worldwide. They are called "china towns".

What kind of quasi-racist crap is this? I'm the first one to condemn the Chinese government, but the emergence of "China Towns" was the result of racist landlords and city governments being unwilling to let Chinese immigrants live outside of confined areas and new immigrants having to rely on each other and established Chinese residents when they wouldn't otherwise have been able to enjoy basic services and networks of support. They have nothing to do with the Chinese state, and they are not "economic zones". They are a symbol of racist oppression.

[Queercommie Girl]

China has economic zones worldwide. They are called "china towns".

Your point being? :confused:

Are you joking or something? Sorry, but it sounded a bit like what some Sinophobic right-wing American hawk might say - "the Chinese are everywhere! They are taking over the world!"...

[Tim Finnegan]

See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member.
Oh, I'm surprised that you don't put that down as your "Organisation", rather than the PSL. It sounds a lot better.

[Delenda Carthago]

What kind of quasi-racist crap is this? I'm the first one to condemn the Chinese government, but the emergence of "China Towns" was the result of racist landlords and city governments being unwilling to let Chinese immigrants live outside of confined areas and new immigrants having to rely on each other and established Chinese residents when they wouldn't otherwise have been able to enjoy basic services and networks of support. They have nothing to do with the Chinese state, and they are not "economic zones". They are a symbol of racist oppression.

I would really like you to tell this to a person from Laos where chinese econommy grew from small shops to take over the economy. "Racist" my ass. This is 21st century where chinese are not being discriminated in the western world and the chinese goverment invests on china towns(of any form) worldwide. Keep your postmodern bullshit. Its not always about racism...

[caramelpence]

I would really like you to tell this to a person from Laos where chinese econommy grew from small shops to take over the economy. "Racist" my ass. This is 21st century where chinese are not being discriminated in the western world and the chinese goverment invests on china towns(of any form) worldwide. Keep your postmodern bullshit. Its not always about racism...

This is a grossly confused and downright ignorant post. What is "postmodern" about someone calling you out on what was clearly a prejudiced comment? More importantly, you present an oversimplified and distorted version of the history of Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. The Chinese communities of this region were not compressed into China Towns in the same way as in Western countries and cities like San Francisco and the term "China Town" is almost always used specifically in relation to those countries and specific districts of large cities - so to begin with it's unclear why you used that term to characterize the role of China and Chinese ethnic communities in the region. From a historical perspective, there are examples where Chinese communities were overwhelmingly comprised of merchants and traders and it is the case that those communities often attracted resistance and were the objects of popular anger, this anger often being harnessed by the merchants of other ethnicities in order to further their own interests, as in the case of the Sarekat Islam, which was formed by modernist Muslim merchants in Indonesia (and Java in particular) in order to resist the economic encroachment of Chinese merchants, and eventually became a peasant movement that the Indonesian Communist Party intervened in, under the instructions of the Comintern. To the extent that Chinese communities played an elite role within individual societies, however, this cannot be taken as a fair generalization for the region as a whole, in that, elsewhere, Chinese communities were at the bottom of the economic ladder - in Malaysia, for example, the Malay Communist Party was overwhelmingly made up of Chinese individuals because of their impoverished economic position. Today, the Malaysian government actually employs a quota system to control the number of Chinese individuals in high-ranking government and private sector positions.

From a contemporary perspective, it may not be the case that middle-class and assimilated Chinese families are the objects of highly visible racist oppression in the West, but this is not true of the illegal immigrants who often take on the most dangerous and onerous tasks in the China Towns that you see as a form of economic colonialism, and we also see the continuing rise of anti-China sentiment and China-bashing that is directed against the Chinese community as a whole and which reflects the unease of Western governments and citizens when faced with China's economic and political rise. The role of China in other countries does not take place through China Towns, it more often takes the form of the large-scale purchase of land and the excavation of raw materials, especially in South America and Africa. China is an emergent imperialist power, but that doesn't warrant prejudice against Chinese immigrants and communities in other countries and it's simply inaccurate to characterize China Towns as outposts of economic colonialism. Most people in cities like London and San Francisco associate China Towns with good (in their opinions, but in reality it's pretty awful) Cantonese food, and that's generally the extent of their contemporary role, apart from providing a base for the overseas branches of Chinese gangster networks.

[manic expression]

Talk about chauvinism ... Are you a paid Chinese government spokesperson, or do you just have unquestioning loathing for anyone with anything critical to say about your favorite pet government? Talking about chauvinism in one breath and then insinuating someone who disagrees with you is a paid Chinese government employee in the next...

Anyway, there are plenty of valid communist criticisms of the PRC, although few have been brought up in this thread so far. Basically, criticisms such as "China is teh imperialism" and "Tibetan feudalists aren't that bad" aren't what I would count as being valid progressive points.

As for what I think of this development...I don't find it a step forward by any means, but I hope it will be a temporary measure. As has been said, it's not exactly anything new, so it shouldn't at all change the progressive nature of the DPRK. What is most clear is that it's highly unlikely to be the portent of impending doom that people here seem to think it is. But most importantly, this means that all leftists need to reemphasize their support for the DPRK and PRC against imperialist aggression.


Oh, I'm surprised that you don't put that down as your "Organisation", rather than the PSL. It sounds a lot better.
I recall you saying something about inept insults...

[Delenda Carthago]

[QUOTE=caramelpence;2139763]This is a grossly confused and downright ignorant post. What is "postmodern" about someone calling you out on what was clearly a prejudiced comment? More importantly, you present an oversimplified and distorted version of the history of Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. The Chinese communities of this region were not compressed into China Towns in the same way as in Western countries and cities like San Francisco and the term "China Town" is almost always used specifically in relation to those countries and specific districts of large cities - so to begin with it's unclear why you used that term to characterize the role of China and Chinese ethnic communities in the region. From a historical perspective, there are examples where Chinese communities were overwhelmingly comprised of merchants and traders and it is the case that those communities often attracted resistance and were the objects of popular anger, this anger often being harnessed by the merchants of other ethnicities in order to further their own interests, as in the case of the Sarekat Islam, which was formed by modernist Muslim merchants in Indonesia (and Java in particular) in order to resist the economic encroachment of Chinese merchants, and eventually became a peasant movement that the Indonesian Communist Party intervened in, under the instructions of the Comintern. To the extent that Chinese communities played an elite role within individual societies, however, this cannot be taken as a fair generalization for the region as a whole, in that, elsewhere, Chinese communities were at the bottom of the economic ladder - in Malaysia, for example, the Malay Communist Party was overwhelmingly made up of Chinese individuals because of their impoverished economic position. Today, the Malaysian government actually employs a quota system to control the number of Chinese individuals in high-ranking government and private sector positions.

From a contemporary perspective, it may not be the case that middle-class and assimilated Chinese families are the objects of highly visible racist oppression in the West, but this is not true of the illegal immigrants who often take on the most dangerous and onerous tasks in the China Towns that you see as a form of economic colonialism, and we also see the continuing rise of anti-China sentiment and China-bashing that is directed against the Chinese community as a whole and which reflects the unease of Western governments and citizens when faced with China's economic and political rise. The role of China in other countries does not take place through China Towns, it more often takes the form of the large-scale purchase of land and the excavation of raw materials, especially in South America and Africa. China is an emergent imperialist power, but

You are making this mistake: you are talkin about the historical role of china towns, as I m referring to the China state strategy the last 15 years. Its two completly different things. I never said that china towns were developed or that the people that live in these china towns even today are... imperialists. Dont get it twisted...




edit: I fucked the post but whatever.
I just want to add that the fact that middle class chinese dont get discriminated against is the proof that in 21st century, the biggest role of prejudice is on taxism, not racism.

[caramelpence]

You are making this mistake: you are talkin about the historical role of china towns, as I m referring to the China state strategy the last 15 years. Its two completly different things. I never said that china towns were developed or that the people that live in these china towns even today are... imperialists. Dont get it twisted...

As I pointed out, in that post, which you haven't read, there were never China Towns in the ordinary sense of the word in countries like Laos, either historically or contemporarily, because China Towns were produced by specific conditions of racist oppression in the West, and current Chinese state strategy does not take place through any China Towns that might exist, it takes place primarily through large-scale state-sponsored purchases of land and raw materials. You evidently have no idea what you are talking about.


I just want to add that the fact that middle class chinese dont get discriminated against is the proof that in 21st century, the biggest role of prejudice is on taxism, not racism.

What is taxism?

[Delenda Carthago]

As I pointed out, in that post, which you haven't read, there were never China Towns in the ordinary sense of the word in countries like Laos, either historically or contemporarily, because China Towns were produced by specific conditions of racist oppression in the West, and current Chinese state strategy does not take place through any China Towns that might exist, it takes place primarily through large-scale state-sponsored purchases of land and raw materials. You evidently have no idea what you are talking about.

If by the term "china town" you describe the term of the western china towns, a place for the hunted, yes there were not. If you describe the closed economic society of mostly china produced goods sellers, it did.
And this is something that the chinese goverment invests too, also.The fact that they are also investing in other things doesnt say much.


What is taxism?
lol. classism, i confused with the greek word which is taxi.:confused:

[Heathen Communist]

This could very well be a step in the right direction, at least for the DPRK.
I just wish it weren't a market-oriented deal.

[L.A.P.]

It doesn't take away from the fact that they are still a workers state.

No it doesn't, you're right. There are so many other things that take away from the fact that it's a worker's state.

[Chimurenga.]

No it doesn't, you're right. There are so many other things that take away from the fact that it's a worker's state.

If we're going by Lenin (which is what I do), the DPRK is still a workers state.

[Ocean Seal]

If we're going by Lenin (which is what I do), the DPRK is still a workers state.
The DPRK cannot be considered a workers state by any measure. Not by Lenin, not by Stalin, not by Mao, not by the anarchists, not by the left-communists, not by the Trotskyists.
The majority of the population is in the active military, the workers don't control any aspect of their lives, and Kim Jong Il doesn't trade with the imperialist West on principle. Yes, the DPRK isn't as bad as some of the places that capitalism has created, but so what? Socialism is about being better than the vast majority of the capitalist states. Now lets be honest the majority of the South Korean Population has it better than North Korea. Are the capitalist countries around Cuba in better shape than it? No. Was the USSR better off than the imperialized capitalist countries around it? Significantly.

What does the DPRK have that would make it a workers state? There is a very strong lack of worker's control, a rather high unemployment and for what its worth just plain poor conditions.

[CleverTitle]

Not exactly. See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member. Meanwhile you live on the internet and espouse your chauvinism all over this forum.

You're as much as an armchair reject as most of the users on this forum.
Jesus Christ. Get over yourself.

[KC]

But most importantly, this means that all leftists need to reemphasize their support for the DPRK and PRC against imperialist aggression.

China is one of the largest, if not the largest, holder of US national debt. So what the fuck are you talking about?


Jesus Christ. Get over yourself.

Don't worry, best case scenario is that in 10-20 years he realizes he's been wasting all of his time. Of course, that probably won't happen. Maybe he'll move up to a cushy paid position, who knows?

[L.A.P.]

If we're going by Lenin (which is what I do), the DPRK is still a workers state.

And how's that?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Talking about chauvinism in one breath and then insinuating someone who disagrees with you is a paid Chinese government employee in the next...


Wait, hold on, he called me a chauvinist and an "armchair theorist" and justified his arrogance in terms of his own PSL membership.

Anyway, it's not the fact that he disagrees with anyone, it's the fact that he's resorting to juvenile ad hominem arguments while arrogantly claiming that he's the only real hardcore revolutionary here. :rolleyes: I'm not ridiculing you and you seem to disagree with me, because you're responding with reason and not petty ad hominem nonsense and red herrings. I don't have any problems rationally arguing the PSL line on China with reasonable members of your organization, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some shrill individual claim that everyone else on the forum isn't as leftist as him because he has a party card.



Anyway, there are plenty of valid communist criticisms of the PRC, although few have been brought up in this thread so far.
The fact that they are using market principles to value the labor of people in another country isn't a problem? Where is the worker's self management? This is neoliberalism with a red flag.


Basically, criticisms such as "China is teh imperialism" and "Tibetan feudalists aren't that bad" aren't what I would count as being valid progressive points.(1) I haven't seen anyone defending Tibetan Feudalism in this thread or anywhere else, and for that matter not every criticism of China's policies towards Tibetans, Mongolians and Turks (which, again, you are bringing up ... I'm not bringing that up) is necessarily an endorsement of feudalism. You can say "China needs to treat Tibetans better" without your statement really meaning "I think 1800s-style mountain feudalism is an ideal system". I don't know where this simplistic black and white interpretation of the Tibet problem comes from.

(2) I'd like to see the argument how this isn't imperialistic. China is taking advantage of the destitution of North Korean workers to get more surplus value out of their economy. This is a relationship between two nominally "socialist" countries, there is no reason except for "efficiency" (exploitation) to value the labor in terms of the cheap market value of North Korean workers and not the value of their sweat and blood.



As for what I think of this development...I don't find it a step forward by any means, but I hope it will be a temporary measure. As has been said, it's not exactly anything new, so it shouldn't at all change the progressive nature of the DPRK. What is most clear is that it's highly unlikely to be the portent of impending doom that people here seem to think it is. But most importantly, this means that all leftists need to reemphasize their support for the DPRK and PRC against imperialist aggression.I see no reason to think you're right, but nonetheless I hope you are. I didn't sign on to the Communist program to work for Chinese state capitalists.

[The_Outernationalist]

So a once legitimate socialist state led by a war hero turned-monarchy begins to develop capitalism. so what?

[Crux]

Now why would the glorious CCP and WPK act this way to open up markets for the chinese private industry? :confused:
PSL, oh revolutionary working class party, please explain this to me. And while you're at it explain why China is also doing the same thing in china itself, as well as Africa and S. America. If this isn't economic imperialism, then what is it?

[Queercommie Girl]

So a once legitimate socialist state led by a war hero turned-monarchy begins to develop capitalism. so what?

However, I'd say this is more of a case of the PRC exploiting North Korea rather than the collaboration of the two countries on an equal basis.

[thefinalmarch]

This is 21st century where chinese are not being discriminated in the western world
Come to Australia and tell the Chinese here that.

[manic expression]

Wait, hold on, he called me a chauvinist and an "armchair theorist" and justified his arrogance in terms of his own PSL membership.
You're trying to say that he isn't even politically committed, that's he's nothing but a government employee...that's uncalled for.


Anyway, it's not the fact that he disagrees with anyone, it's the fact that he's resorting to juvenile ad hominem arguments while arrogantly claiming that he's the only real hardcore revolutionary here. :rolleyes: I'm not ridiculing you and you seem to disagree with me, because you're responding with reason and not petty ad hominem nonsense and red herrings. I don't have any problems rationally arguing the PSL line on China with reasonable members of your organization, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some shrill individual claim that everyone else on the forum isn't as leftist as him because he has a party card.I think it has something to do with the fact that posters here put up a picture of PSL members who were opposing imperialist aggression in the streets, and promptly tried to poke fun at them for it. The PSL was brought into the discussion purely because some wanted to gratuitously criticize and slander it...perhaps you can understand why a PSL member would want to call that out and reiterate that the revolutionary course of action is supporting our comrades from imperialist belligerence.

In other words, posters started bashing the PSL for almost no concievable reason within the first three posts. It's very natural that PSL members would be a bit defensive from then on.


The fact that they are using market principles to value the labor of people in another country isn't a problem? Where is the worker's self management? This is neoliberalism with a red flag.Worker's self management is through the KWP. Such measures, not being new, are really a response to the siege against the DPRK. You can't have an economy 100% isolated...that goes for socialist ones as much as capitalist ones. The DPRK has done a simply incredible job of increasing self-reliance over the past decade, but these measures are designed to bolster that. Are they ideal? Of course not, but they may yet be a helpful retreat in order to defend socialism in Korea.


(1) I haven't seen anyone defending Tibetan Feudalism in this thread or anywhere else,I get where you're coming from but I'm not getting into the matter itself...the issue, however, was brought up by a PRC-detractor earlier, who compared the Dalai Lama favorably to the PRC. That is absurd, and furthermore it's not at all from a progressive standpoint.


(2) I'd like to see the argument how this isn't imperialistic. China is taking advantage of the destitution of North Korean workers to get more surplus value out of their economy. This is a relationship between two nominally "socialist" countries, there is no reason except for "efficiency" (exploitation) to value the labor in terms of the cheap market value of North Korean workers and not the value of their sweat and blood.Imperialism isn't just that. I disagree with your conceptualization of the policy, but nevertheless the real point is if the PRC is an imperialist power in the Marxist understanding. I don't think it does, because what you outlined is far from what makes a country imperialist. Could we by the same token say that whenever a country does something for efficiency, it's an imperialist power?


I see no reason to think you're right, but nonetheless I hope you are. I didn't sign on to the Communist program to work for Chinese state capitalists.I hear that. We can't know the future, but even in spite of that I trust the communists of Korea to do what is best by their class. The path of socialism isn't a straight one...we all take zigs and zags here and there, because even if we can make our own history we cannot choose the circumstances we face. Time will tell on this...being that as it may I do not demand that you support it fully, but I do thank you for discussing it honestly.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

So if this isolated incident is for 'efficiency' as you put it, can the same be said for China's recent attempts to monopolize the seas and islands in South East Asia, that are closer to Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries, that has led to protests in Vietnam, too? What about China's plundering of Africa that has led the US to speak out, is this a battle for efficiency? Or a battle between two imperialist nations with African land, resources and of course labour as the prize?

China is a country that is openly advocating market economics, is moving across the world for resources and labour, that has capitalistic labour relations within its own borders and is doing dirty dealings all over South East Asia for oil and whatever else, that is capitalism and of course that is imperialism. Would it help if the party of China's ruling class changed its name from the Communist Party to the Capitalist Party? Would you guys then get the message? Revleft is a crazy place.

[Queercommie Girl]

So if this isolated incident is for 'efficiency' as you put it, can the same be said for China's recent attempts to monopolize the seas and islands in South East Asia, that are closer to Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries, that has led to protests in Vietnam, too? What about China's plundering of Africa that has led the US to speak out, is this a battle for efficiency? Or a battle between two imperialist nations with African land, resources and of course labour as the prize?

China is a country that is openly advocating market economics, is moving across the world for resources and labour, that has capitalistic labour relations within its own borders and is doing dirty dealings all over South East Asia for oil and whatever else, that is capitalism and of course that is imperialism. Would it help if the party of China's ruling class changed its name from the Communist Party to the Capitalist Party? Would you guys then get the message? Revleft is a crazy place.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it is important to realise that quantitatively China is still far behind the United States. China's GDP per capita is 10 times lower than the EU average, and frankly most of the people the Chinese ruling class currently oppresses are Chinese workers rather than anyone outside the Chinese border.

I would say that China itself is a semi-comprador regime that is partly under the domination of Western imperialism (somewhat like many Latin American countries but to a lesser extent), rather than an independent imperialist power in its own right.

China is a petit-imperialist or sub-imperialist power like the other BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia and India, rather than a fully independent imperialist state like the US.

This is not to deny the reactionary nature of the Chinese ruling bloc, but it is important to realise that China today is not just "another America".

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I wouldn't disagree with that and I think it was a fair enough point to make, but my only point was that one doesn't have to look far to find imperialistic traits at the hands of China. I used the examples I posted (for which sources are on revleft) to illustrate this fact and contradict a poster's claim that China's dealings with North Korea are about efficiency. With that in mind, I would reccommend to certain comrades that a rethink with regards to the Chinese economy and its ruling class are in order - one will find that they are not the anti-imperialists some people would have us believe, but are in fact engaged in imperialism. Also noteworthy is the fact that China's economy is growing and will continue to do so, whilst it is not on the same quantitative level of the US economy, it certainly has the US worried, given that they have been the dominant economy for such a long time. China will move more and more that way, however it wont matter to some here, aslong as there's a red flag waving.

[Return to the Source]

Nothing makes you respect the KWP more than reading the opinions of these 'leftists' on the internet, almost exclusively from Western countries. The DPRK stays isolated from international market forces, and its critics charge that the regime is both state capitalist and negligent in the famines that take place because of insufficient resources. As soon as the DPRK opens up trade with another socialist country to try and alleviate their material disadvantages and improve the standard of living, they're suddenly (and inexplicably) capitalist collaborators.

These people don't just buy the bourgeois media's line on the DPRK; they order it online, pay for same-day delivery, and worship it profusely when it arrives via FedEx.

I'm glad the KWP doesn't give a damn about the views of these Western left-communists and Trotskyites. There's literally nothing they could do right in the eyes of these cultural chauvinists.

[caramelpence]

Nothing makes you respect the KWP more than reading the opinions of these 'leftists' on the internet, almost exclusively from Western countries. The DPRK stays isolated from international market forces, and its critics charge that the regime is both state capitalist and negligent in the famines that take place because of insufficient resources. As soon as the DPRK opens up trade with another socialist country to try and alleviate their material disadvantages and improve the standard of living, they're suddenly (and inexplicably) capitalist collaborators.

These people don't just buy the bourgeois media's line on the DPRK; they order it online, pay for same-day delivery, and worship it profusely when it arrives via FedEx.

I'm glad the KWP doesn't give a damn about the views of these Western left-communists and Trotskyites. There's literally nothing they could do right in the eyes of these cultural chauvinists.

Actually, critics of the DPRK like myself don't criticize the DPRK because it is or was isolated from international market forces (which in any case is not true and is a repetition of the DPRK's own myths about itself - there is a history of economic cooperation between the ROK and the DPRK and the DPRK is an important exporter of certain commodities to other pariah states, such as military hardware) or even because of famines (the very fact that the DPRK experienced such serious famines and shortages during the 1990s and that its economy has still not recovered is further evidence that the DPRK's rhetoric concerning self-reliance was only ever that, rhetoric, and that it was actually heavily dependent on the rest of the Soviet bloc). We criticize it because it exhibits a lack of meaningful democratic control over the means of production and because its social relations are still characterized by exploitation and commodity production.

Concerning whether China is socialist or not, I'm still waiting for your answer to the critique that you demanded and were given: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2118689&postcount=24

[RED DAVE]

It's also pretty LOL that people assume "economic zone" strictly means private enterprises.Yeah, we assume that:


The sides agreed that the economic zones should be developed along "government-guided, enterprise-based and market-oriented" principles, the ministry said.We assume this means private enterprise or state enterprise with private enterprise principles. No fucking thing to do with socialism, clown.

RED DAVE

[Crux]

As soon as the DPRK opens up trade with another socialist country to try and alleviate their material disadvantages and improve the standard of living, they're suddenly (and inexplicably) capitalist collaborators.
So china's Special Economic Zones are socialism? I haven't even seen the "Chiana is still socialist"-crowd on here argue that. That these new economic zones in DPRK is going to be "Market oriented" should be telling, but maybe you have your blinders too tightly on.

Oh and note to the "anti-revisonists" on here that will undoubtly rush to this guys defence, check out the link in his signature, he is an out-and-out Dengist.

[Return to the Source]

Of all the labels ever thrown on me, I've never heard 'Dengist'. That's a good one.

[Crux]

Of all the labels ever thrown on me, I've never heard 'Dengist'. That's a good one.
For me, it was that big picture of Deng and the article writing appprovably of Deng ("Long live the universal contributions of Deng Xiaoping to Marxism-Leninism!" comes to mind) and later market liberalization in China that did it actually. Those from the maoist tradition would probably use it more casually. You avoid the question though. Although having read your article it's obvious your oblivious to the difference between socialism and capitalism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

However, I'd say this is more of a case of the PRC exploiting North Korea rather than the collaboration of the two countries on an equal basis.

I agree with this, but considering the state of the North Korean economy it was a matter of time. It is just a shame that the only alternative to paranoid autarky is capitalist exploitation. This seems an awful lot like the American model of "aid through investment" where Yank companies go in and build a factory to "bring jobs" and "Grow the economy" etc.


You're trying to say that he isn't even politically committed, that's he's nothing but a government employee...that's uncalled for.


True, but he's out of place to accuse anyone else of being an "armchair leftist"



Worker's self management is through the KWP. Such measures, not being new, are really a response to the siege against the DPRK. You can't have an economy 100% isolated...that goes for socialist ones as much as capitalist ones. The DPRK has done a simply incredible job of increasing self-reliance over the past decade, but these measures are designed to bolster that. Are they ideal? Of course not, but they may yet be a helpful retreat in order to defend socialism in Korea.
I can't buy the idea that the KWP is really a legitimate vanguard movement. They have a familial line of succession and a level of personality cult which is totally counter to the socialist ideal of progress towards egalitarianism. At least Vietnam, China, Laos and Cuba have more open political systems, even if they are still quite hierarchical and elitist. But the political and military culture in North Korea is simply too much for me to take.



Imperialism isn't just that. I disagree with your conceptualization of the policy, but nevertheless the real point is if the PRC is an imperialist power in the Marxist understanding. I don't think it does, because what you outlined is far from what makes a country imperialist. Could we by the same token say that whenever a country does something for efficiency, it's an imperialist power?
It's not the fact that they are seeking efficiency, it's the fact that they are seeking to grow their surplus value at the expense of people living outside their nation. And it is because they are seeking to do so by exploiting the contradictions of those external societies. They are doing similar things in Sudan, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and other countries which lack stable or ethical political classes to gain resources to feed their growing economy. Sure, their methods are still better than those of the US or UK, but at least those two are openly Capitalist.



I hear that. We can't know the future, but even in spite of that I trust the communists of Korea to do what is best by their class. The path of socialism isn't a straight one...we all take zigs and zags here and there, because even if we can make our own history we cannot choose the circumstances we face. Time will tell on this...being that as it may I do not demand that you support it fully, but I do thank you for discussing it honestly.Its certainly true that the path to socialism can take weird paths, but when you open up your party and economic power structure to Capital, it's surprisingly hard to remove it. I see no reason why worker's parties will be any less corruptible than any other institution in history which has claimed to work on behalf of the poor and downtrodden.

Anyway, thanks for not taking my ideological differences personally. I don't agree with the PSL ideology, but sectarian bickering has never done the left any good.


Nothing makes you respect the KWP more than reading the opinions of these 'leftists' on the internet, almost exclusively from Western countries. The DPRK stays isolated from international market forces, and its critics charge that the regime is both state capitalist and negligent in the famines that take place because of insufficient resources. As soon as the DPRK opens up trade with another socialist country to try and alleviate their material disadvantages and improve the standard of living, they're suddenly (and inexplicably) capitalist collaborators.

These people don't just buy the bourgeois media's line on the DPRK; they order it online, pay for same-day delivery, and worship it profusely when it arrives via FedEx.

I'm glad the KWP doesn't give a damn about the views of these Western left-communists and Trotskyites. There's literally nothing they could do right in the eyes of these cultural chauvinists.

OK wise guy tell me why would a real Communist country want to exploit the labor of another Communist country to gain surplus value? What function does that serve other than to accumulate capital?

Also, what's with the reverse racism? What, are all people from "Western" countries automatically wrong? On the other hand, I have never met anyone in "non-Western" countries ever told me "Boy, I like the DPRK, I don't understand why you Western people don't." Where do you get the idea that the criticisms that people have of the North Korean state apparatus are exclusive to people from the "Western" world?

[Geiseric]

Another thing that some people forget to mention is that the NK government is totally allowing this to happen. They're allowing their people to be exploited while calling themselves socialists.

Gentlemen, I present to you the result of the past 90 years of what capitalists and Marxist Leninists call Socialism! Isn't it pretty? Two countries claiming to be workers states, both filled with Slave labor. One of the countries wants more slave labor, so they get it from their fellow workers state! Isn't it pretty Marxist Leninists?

[Thirsty Crow]

Defend one imperialist, party-state regime from another imperialist regime.

Wow, how did communists end up with such pearls of wisdom?

[manic expression]

True, but he's out of place to accuse anyone else of being an "armchair leftist"
Well, like I said, when your party gets slandered for absolutely no reason like it has been here, emotions will run high.


I can't buy the idea that the KWP is really a legitimate vanguard movement. They have a familial line of succession and a level of personality cult which is totally counter to the socialist ideal of progress towards egalitarianism. At least Vietnam, China, Laos and Cuba have more open political systems, even if they are still quite hierarchical and elitist. But the political and military culture in North Korea is simply too much for me to take.
Different vanguards do things differently. The KWP saw it best to make Kim Jong-Il leader, so they did so. I don't think that automatically disqualifies them from being a revolutionary vanguard. The so-called "personality cult" might seem whimsical for those outside of DPRK society, but considering what they're up against I'm not against anything to raise morale and outline good role models for working-class militants. On a certain level, what the DPRK does in their "personality cult" is no different from what most societies do (Statue of Liberty, tombs of the unknown soldier, etc.).

The media propaganda against the DPRK also obfuscates the fact that the KWP isn't the only party around. There's also a Social-Democratic party active in the country. I, too, would like to see some more openness, but we're looking at a country under siege and I think the measures they've taken are certainly reasonable.


It's not the fact that they are seeking efficiency, it's the fact that they are seeking to grow their surplus value at the expense of people living outside their nation. And it is because they are seeking to do so by exploiting the contradictions of those external societies. They are doing similar things in Sudan, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and other countries which lack stable or ethical political classes to gain resources to feed their growing economy. Sure, their methods are still better than those of the US or UK, but at least those two are openly Capitalist.
The PRC never forced anyone to accept their involvement at the point of a gun (something you alluded to), so it's very different from what we see from imperialist countries. Granted, the PRC isn't doing what Cuba is doing around the world by sending doctors to impoverished areas oftentimes without any compensation...but it's definitely not the Gelbe Gefaehr that the media would have us believe. Just because it's not ideal doesn't mean it's imperialist.


Its certainly true that the path to socialism can take weird paths, but when you open up your party and economic power structure to Capital, it's surprisingly hard to remove it. I see no reason why worker's parties will be any less corruptible than any other institution in history which has claimed to work on behalf of the poor and downtrodden.
Yes, definitely. It's a slippery slope at best. However, I trust the Korean workers to keep it under control. Plus, had the KWP wanted to privatize, they had ample opportunities to do so long ago.


Anyway, thanks for not taking my ideological differences personally. I don't agree with the PSL ideology, but sectarian bickering has never done the left any good.
Likewise. :thumbup1:

[Queercommie Girl]

I wouldn't disagree with that and I think it was a fair enough point to make, but my only point was that one doesn't have to look far to find imperialistic traits at the hands of China. I used the examples I posted (for which sources are on revleft) to illustrate this fact and contradict a poster's claim that China's dealings with North Korea are about efficiency. With that in mind, I would reccommend to certain comrades that a rethink with regards to the Chinese economy and its ruling class are in order - one will find that they are not the anti-imperialists some people would have us believe, but are in fact engaged in imperialism. Also noteworthy is the fact that China's economy is growing and will continue to do so, whilst it is not on the same quantitative level of the US economy, it certainly has the US worried, given that they have been the dominant economy for such a long time. China will move more and more that way, however it wont matter to some here, aslong as there's a red flag waving.

Two things:

1) China has a great source of cheap labour within its own borders, so due to pragmatic reasons will exploit its own people more than anyone outside China. Usually very overt imperialist states aggressively dominate and colonise other countries because their own nation does not have a large enough population to provide the ruling class with slave labour. China is not in this category, so while I do not ignore the imperialist actions of China, even in the future they are unlikely to be primary. Most of China's exploitation is directed at its own people. (As was the case throughout Chinese history)

2) China may be engaging in imperialist actions to some extent, but is China a genuinely independent player on the international scene? I highly doubt it. As I said, the Chinese regime today is semi-comprador. The bureaucratic capitalists ruling China have sold out Chinese national interests to the US. Indeed, many of the family relatives of these corrupt ultra-rich bureaucratic capitalists already live in the US and other Western countries. So rather than just seeing Chinese "imperialism" today as completely opposed to Western imperialism, it's actually better to see it as a sub-set of Western imperialism. (Hence the idea that China is a sub-imperialist country)

[KC]

2) China may be engaging in imperialist actions to some extent, but is China a genuinely independent player on the international scene? I highly doubt it. As I said, the Chinese regime today is semi-comprador. The bureaucratic capitalists ruling China have sold out Chinese national interests to the US. Indeed, many of the family relatives of these corrupt ultra-rich bureaucratic capitalists already live in the US and other Western countries. So rather than just seeing Chinese "imperialism" today as completely opposed to Western imperialism, it's actually better to see it as a sub-set of Western imperialism. (Hence the idea that China is a sub-imperialist country)

I'm not really sure how you can argue that it's a "sub-imperialist" country simply based on these facts alone. Foreign investment in China is high, along with its huge export market, but this is not India we're talking about. The CCP is not being dominated by western governments but rather is for the purposes of trade in agreement with it. So I'm not sure how you can argue that China is "sub-imperialist" when it would be more accurate to say that they're tied at the hip, on a level but inescapable relationship.

[Le Socialiste]

China ceased to be anywhere near "revolutionary" a long, long time ago. North Korea never started. The nation is little more than the means by which a small handful of individuals maintain a rich and lavish existence. Not to mention the blatant dynastic/monarchistic influences. There's nothing about the good 'ole DPRK that remotely resembles a workers' state. Same goes for China. Both countries exploit their people for the benefit of a select, privileged few. The sooner we dispel any illusions about these governments the better. We shouldn't be associated with defending two oppressive regimes. Better yet, we should acknowledge that they are just as bad as any other governmental structure in the West - just a tad more authoritarian...:rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

Two puppets of the West are just as bad as Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao? Might I ask just what fucking planet you live on?

Oh yes. "The West", not capital and the capitalist state. This, comrades, is when your whole model is designed to attract contrarian kids from college campuses in "teh West" toward being part of a "revolutionary proletarian party" (what, praytell, makes that the case on the part of the PSL, their say-so?) instead of becoming a hipster or vegan. All about selling self-indulgent lifestyle poseury to wannabes.

[KC]

Oh yes. "The West", not capital and the capitalist state. This, comrades, is when your whole model is designed to attract contrarian kids from college campuses in "teh West" toward being part of a "revolutionary proletarian party" (what, praytell, makes that the case on the part of the PSL, their say-so?) instead of becoming a hipster or vegan. All about selling self-indulgent lifestyle poseury to wannabes.

Pretty sure this isn't exclusive to PSL, though their members are the most vocal about their rrrevolutionary credentials. Almost all of the left is just filled with lifestylists.

[Jose Gracchus]

College kids screaming about moral purism of their totally functionally fucking irrelevant "stances" on shit taking place conveniently 8000 miles too far for them to have to put up or shut up, eager to call out any opponents un-ironically as "pro-imperialist Westerners", and proudly pontificate that their petty bourgeois sect is an authentic revolutionary proletarian party in the model of Lenin's party...that qualifies as lifestylism to me just as much as absurd beliefs that avoiding meat is morally meaningful or that dumpster diving is defying capitalism.

At least yesterday's Stalinists were willing to volunteer and die for the Spanish Republic against fascism.

[manic expression]

College kids screaming about moral purism of their totally functionally fucking irrelevant "stances" on shit taking place conveniently 8000 miles too far for them to have to put up or shut up, eager to call out any opponents un-ironically as "pro-imperialist Westerners", and proudly pontificate that their petty bourgeois sect is an authentic revolutionary proletarian party in the model of Lenin's party...that qualifies as lifestylism to me just as much as absurd beliefs that avoiding meat is morally meaningful or that dumpster diving is defying capitalism.

At least yesterday's Stalinists were willing to volunteer and die for the Spanish Republic against fascism.
RevLeft's favorite slander artist is at it again.

Of course, this hack won't ever come close to supporting his wild claim that the PSL is a "petty bourgeois sect", he won't come to grips that he is in fact dovetailing with imperialist rhetoric instead of opposing it as actual revolutionaries do, he certainly won't notice that his tendency is positively drowning in the worst form of lifestylism and has for decades and he most assuredly won't realize that opposing US aggression against the DPRK (for instance) is not irrelevant and is something we can oppose in our backyards (were we to have them). So basically, The Inform Candidate is talking straight out of his ass, as usual.

It's worth saying again. The PSL (along with other revolutionary parties) pisses off anti-socialist windbags because they can't stand the sight of what they will never be: communists.

The funniest part of all this? IIRC, The Inform Candidate used to be part of SDS...the PREMIER organization of "college kids screaming about moral purism". In fact, the New SDS takes "college kids screaming about moral purism" to entirely new levels. Dumpster diving is probably the most revolutionary thing they were ever able to do. :lol: Irony always makes idiotic anti-socialism even more hilarious.

[Kiev Communard]

The funniest part of all this? IIRC, The Inform Candidate used to be part of SDS...the PREMIER organization of "college kids screaming about moral purism". In fact, the New SDS takes "college kids screaming about moral purism" to entirely new levels. Dumpster diving is probably the most revolutionary thing they were ever able to do. :lol: Irony always makes idiotic anti-socialism even more hilarious.

Well, at least the New SDS, as far as I know, does not take the anti-socialist position according to which each bourgeois state/party wrapping up in the red flag and using anti-U.S. rhetoric is automatically "proletarian".

[Le Socialiste]

It's worth saying again. The PSL (along with other revolutionary parties) pisses off anti-socialist windbags because they can't stand the sight of what they will never be: communists.

Yes, because the only way of proving yourself a true blue revolutionary is by joining the nearest leftist Party. Mind telling me how China and N. Korea are workers' paradises again? :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Well, at least the New SDS, as far as I know, does not take the anti-socialist position according to which each bourgeois state/party wrapping up in the red flag and using anti-U.S. rhetoric is automatically "proletarian".
Well, they´re far too busy doing nothing anyway. But supporting socialist states against US imperialism isn´t anti-socialist at all...but why you insist on condemning comrades instead of supporting them (with criticisms, if need be) against the enemies of socialism is beyond me.


Yes, because the only way of proving yourself a true blue revolutionary is by joining the nearest leftist Party. Mind telling me how China and N. Korea are workers' paradises again? :rolleyes:
Communists tend to get more things done when they work in groups. But your disdain for organized action is as ridiculous as your projection. Revolutionary politics isn´t about making "workers´paradises", but about establishing and defending working-class control over the means of production. When you phrase the question in a serious manner, I will answer it in kind.

[Le Socialiste]

Communists tend to get more things done when they work in groups. But your disdain for organized action is as ridiculous as your projection. Revolutionary politics isn´t about making "workers´paradises", but about establishing and defending working-class control over the means of production. When you phrase the question in a serious manner, I will answer it in kind.


I agree with that first part. The whole basis for successful organizing is vital in maintaining revolutionary politics and movements. There's no disputing that, I think. However, such organizing needn't be in the form of a party. As for establishing and defending working-class control over the means of production - hey, we agree yet again! But to say that China and N. Korea qualify as workers' states is not only false, it damages our movement. The Chinese worker lives in poverty while the Party reaps the benefits; the same applies to the DPRK. Now, how do you defend two clearly counterrevolutionary governments as revolutionary?

[manic expression]

I agree with that first part. The whole basis for successful organizing is vital in maintaining revolutionary politics and movements. There's no disputing that, I think. However, such organizing needn't be in the form of a party. As for establishing and defending working-class control over the means of production - hey, we agree yet again!
:)


But to say that China and N. Korea qualify as workers' states is not only false, it damages our movement. The Chinese worker lives in poverty while the Party reaps the benefits; the same applies to the DPRK. Now, how do you defend two clearly counterrevolutionary governments as revolutionary?
OK, that´s a well-put question. But of course, I disagree for a few reasons. First of all, it´s not false that both are workers´states, the KWP controls the means of production in the DPRK and the CPC does the same in the PRC. Certainly no capitalist class is in control of the state. After this, our analyses must diverge because we´re looking at two very different societies. The DPRK, for instance, sees very little private enterprise, while the PRC sees quite a bit more in ratio and in importance. Still, the commonality is that both governments are the result of working-class revolutions.

The Chinese worker "living in poverty" (however defined) is little evidence for much of anything. The Parisian worker hardly lived in luxury during the Commune...and yet who among us would contend that it was not a society controlled by the proletariat? Further, CPC membership is in the dozens of millions...this definitely includes the "impoverished" demographic you speak of.

Lastly, the charge of "counterrevolutionary" is very much misplaced. Are we to believe that these governments are counterrevolutionary when they have acted as severe obstacles to imperialism? Are we to think the DPRK counterrevolutionary when it has fought to keep itself free of capitalist aggression for decades under the most trying of circumstances? The counterrevolutionary road would have been to privatize just like everyone else in the 1990´s...but the working-class vanguard of the DPRK knew that this was not only a grave mistake but tantamount to selling onself back into slavery. It is precisely because countries like the DPRK are led by the most conscious and able workers that they didn´t follow such a reactionary path when the only alternative was a progressive, but immensely difficult, path of revolutionary struggle.

[Le Socialiste]

The Chinese worker "living in poverty" (however defined) is little evidence for much of anything. The Parisian worker hardly lived in luxury during the Commune...and yet who among us would contend that it was not a society controlled by the proletariat? Further, CPC membership is in the dozens of millions...this definitely includes the "impoverished" demographic you speak of.

I fail to see how the Party apparatus in China amounts to a "society controlled by the proletariat". More often than not, leftist parties - once legitimized by the ruling elite - abandon revolutionary politics in favor of reformist, opportunist, and reactionary tendencies. This can be seen in the communist/socialist/anarchist parties of Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Today, these parties are held firmly within the sway of the bourgeois capitalistic political system(s). No single Party can create a successful workers' state, complete with the liberties and freedoms of a worker-run democracy. The very nature of the political party is a byproduct of bourgeois parliamentarism, and is therefore an unsustainable aspect of any revolutionary movement. At any point, the Party threatens the strength and vitality of the worker-led revolt, seeking to inherit the spoils of a revolution it didn't win. It happened in Russia, it happened in Spain, and it happened in China and N. Korea (among many others). True workers' democracy doesn't require the presence of a vanguardist political party to lead the way; if the workers are revolutionized, they will organize along the lines of a revolutionary program best suited to their immediate - and eventually long-term - needs. The CPC has usurped the place of the worker in this respect by centralizing the majority of economic activity/planning into a small privileged few. Private enterprise and "free" market economics have exploded, as the ruling elites seek to exploit labor for profit. They don't have the workers' best interests at heart, and they never truly have. As a result, the people of China suffer.


Lastly, the charge of "counterrevolutionary" is very much misplaced. Are we to believe that these governments are counterrevolutionary when they have acted as severe obstacles to imperialism? Are we to think the DPRK counterrevolutionary when it has fought to keep itself free of capitalist aggression for decades under the most trying of circumstances? The counterrevolutionary road would have been to privatize just like everyone else in the 1990´s...but the working-class vanguard of the DPRK knew that this was not only a grave mistake but tantamount to selling onself back into slavery. It is precisely because countries like the DPRK are led by the most conscious and able workers that they didn´t follow such a reactionary path when the only alternative was a progressive, but immensely difficult, path of revolutionary struggle.

What do you think the DPRK and China are doing now? These projects between the two of them is little more than Chinese exploitation of N. Korean labor. There is no "working-class vanguard"; only opportunistic reformists seeking control of the state. It isn't until the masses seize the very structures of the state, dismantle them, and organize themselves along purely independent lines of emancipatory politics that we can deem any initial revolutionary stage successful. However, when a leader appoints his son as leader after he passes, and that son appoints his son for leadership following his demise, coupled with an absolute cult of personality and worship of said family, you don't have a revolutionary workers' state - you have a dynasty/monarchy. The DPRK isn't a workers' state, nor is it led by a revolutionized political vanguard of the proletariat; it is held in the grasp of a corrupt, brutal, utterly counterrevolutionary family of crooks and tyrants who have an affinity for lavish Western goods and luxuries - all at the expense of the people they rule over.

[manic expression]

I fail to see how the Party apparatus in China amounts to a "society controlled by the proletariat". More often than not, leftist parties - once legitimized by the ruling elite - abandon revolutionary politics in favor of reformist, opportunist, and reactionary tendencies. This can be seen in the communist/socialist/anarchist parties of Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Today, these parties are held firmly within the sway of the bourgeois capitalistic political system(s). No single Party can create a successful workers' state, complete with the liberties and freedoms of a worker-run democracy. The very nature of the political party is a byproduct of bourgeois parliamentarism, and is therefore an unsustainable aspect of any revolutionary movement. At any point, the Party threatens the strength and vitality of the worker-led revolt, seeking to inherit the spoils of a revolution it didn't win. It happened in Russia, it happened in Spain, and it happened in China and N. Korea (among many others). True workers' democracy doesn't require the presence of a vanguardist political party to lead the way; if the workers are revolutionized, they will organize along the lines of a revolutionary program best suited to their immediate - and eventually long-term - needs. The CPC has usurped the place of the worker in this respect by centralizing the majority of economic activity/planning into a small privileged few. Private enterprise and "free" market economics have exploded, as the ruling elites seek to exploit labor for profit. They don't have the workers' best interests at heart, and they never truly have. As a result, the people of China suffer.
That's silly. Not all parties that are legal go into reformism, and of all the leftist parties in the world, the KWP and CPC are two parties who can't be accused of that with any shred of seriousness. They've been as illegalized, hunted down, banned and more as much as anyone you can name. Whatever your criticisms of those two organizations, being "legitimized" by the capitalist class is definitely not a valid perspective. In fact it's blatantly false.

A single party can create a workers' state just fine. Of course, the party doesn't do it alone, the class in general must be involved in the struggle and construction of socialism. However, the leadership role of the vanguard party is most comfortably confirmed by the record of history. Every working-class revolution, bar none, has had a vanguard. Every successful working-class revolution has had a vanguard party. That speaks for itself far more than economist ramblings ever could.

Of course, if you take the anti-Soviet view, the Russian Revolution doesn't look like a success, but that's only because you apparently oppose all states, and thus working-class states as well. Such a position would condemn any organization that defended working-class gains with any semblance of efficiency, and so it is a position that holds neither usefulness nor relevance to the struggle for socialism.


What do you think the DPRK and China are doing now? These projects between the two of them is little more than Chinese exploitation of N. Korean labor. There is no "working-class vanguard"; only opportunistic reformists seeking control of the state. It isn't until the masses seize the very structures of the state, dismantle them, and organize themselves along purely independent lines of emancipatory politics that we can deem any initial revolutionary stage successful. However, when a leader appoints his son as leader after he passes, and that son appoints his son for leadership following his demise, coupled with an absolute cult of personality and worship of said family, you don't have a revolutionary workers' state - you have a dynasty/monarchy. The DPRK isn't a workers' state, nor is it led by a revolutionized political vanguard of the proletariat; it is held in the grasp of a corrupt, brutal, utterly counterrevolutionary family of crooks and tyrants who have an affinity for lavish Western goods and luxuries - all at the expense of the people they rule over.
You failed to comprehend the full meaning of what you yourself put in bold. Had the DPRK wanted to privatize, there were far better opportunities to do so. This is very much not what you are making it out to be. Not only is it not new (as you are claiming it is), not only is it not the sky-is-falling nonsense that every ultra-left has thrown about in this thread (the same people who hated the DPRK before any of these developments had been planned...which means they hate Korean socialism no matter what), but it is a tactical decision meant to improve economic relations with other countries, something the DPRK could use some more of.

Humorously enough, ultra-lefts love bashing the DPRK for isolating itself...and now that they're lessening said isolation, it's bashed as capitulation to capitalism. You couldn't make this crap up, such is the two-faced nature of ulta-left anti-socialism.

Which brings us to the most important point. Your argument consists of "the DPRK isn't a worker state because I said so". This lacks materialism, and further lacks sense. It is based entirely on imperialist propaganda against the DPRK, which includes a vast misunderstanding of what the DPRK actually is. You call its leadership "utterly counterrevolutionary family of crooks", a strong claim, but you give nothing to support this. Why? Because you feel no need to support it, as you feel anti-socialist slander is sufficient evidence for whatever you feel like saying.

So really, your argument is a giant straw-man. You imagine the DPRK to be whatever you want it to be, and then you criticize that illusion. Revolutionary politics has no place for such superficial drivel.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not really sure how you can argue that it's a "sub-imperialist" country simply based on these facts alone. Foreign investment in China is high, along with its huge export market, but this is not India we're talking about. The CCP is not being dominated by western governments but rather is for the purposes of trade in agreement with it. So I'm not sure how you can argue that China is "sub-imperialist" when it would be more accurate to say that they're tied at the hip, on a level but inescapable relationship.

Well, let's look at the economic facts. I'm not sure how you can think that China is much more advanced than India is today. Both are considered to be BRIC countries or major emerging advanced developing countries, and in fact the GDP per capita in many areas of China is actually lower than that of India. The only area in which China is definitely more advanced than India is in the field of military. But military power by itself doesn't mean much. Russia's military is even more powerful than China's, and indeed superior to that of the European Union, but economically Russia today is still quite weak.

Today, many of China's "national industries" have been privatised and sold off to foreigners. The Chinese regime is also the most active collaborator of Western corporations in China and their continuing search for cheap Chinese labour. In short, the Chinese regime is selling its own people as cheap labour for Western corporations so that a very small layer of super-elites can be enriched. The relationship is clearly not an equal one. There are many Western and Japanese corporations on Chinese soil, but very few Chinese corporations on the soil of advanced capitalist countries of the West.

I have not said that the Chinese government is literally controlled by the West, but the economic relationship between China and the West is clearly a very unequal one. The West and Japan exports capital and advanced technology (perhaps also waste) to China, while China largely exports cheap labour, low-tech general goods and raw materials to the West.

[RED DAVE]

What we are seeing in the DPRK is another version of the same process that occurred in the USSR, China, Eastern Europe and Vietnam: the transformation of state capitalism into private capitalism.

This is the legacy of Stalinism/Maoism/Hoxhaism/Juche: virulent capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think having participated in SDS meetings or activities assigns me any magical bona fides, or magically qualifies one as substantive working towards communism, or think there is anything to dick-measure about. I was quite passive, and most people I knew in it were much more thoroughly involved. I sought more involvement, but a mentally imbalanced Brezhnevite stalked me (including going to the lengths of trying to recruit mods on this forum to help get me banned on the grounds of personal feud hearsay). That's why I'd never fly off the handle saying preposterous things because I've showed up at a march, held a sign, or spoken into a horn before, but I can't say the same for others belonging to other organizations. I would not say, and seek not to say, "I'm better than you because I'm a member of a revolutionary proletarian party [lol] and active! Did I mention how active I am?" I know it is impossible to understand for yo, but I do not think there is any place for me to be trying to compete for monastic bona fides like you do. You can't call me a hypocrite when, unlike you and yours, I don't think my belonging to some protest org makes me the big man. I'd like to help, I don't think it necessarily has much to do with communism or makes me a better person than others. No amount of conscious militants can organize and impart onto the working class, its struggle.

How exactly are you sure the PSL is organically a proletarian organization? Do you recruit only from workplaces? Unions?

As for SDS' activities, well, they seem to be essentially identical to the cross-class fronts set up by PSL, and virtually everyone I met in it had Brezhnevite politics which are virtually indistinguishable from yours.

[Le Socialiste]

That's silly. Not all parties that are legal go into reformism, and of all the leftist parties in the world, the KWP and CPC are two parties who can't be accused of that with any shred of seriousness. They've been as illegalized, hunted down, banned and more as much as anyone you can name. Whatever your criticisms of those two organizations, being "legitimized" by the capitalist class is definitely not a valid perspective. In fact it's blatantly false.

A single party can create a workers' state just fine. Of course, the party doesn't do it alone, the class in general must be involved in the struggle and construction of socialism. However, the leadership role of the vanguard party is most comfortably confirmed by the record of history. Every working-class revolution, bar none, has had a vanguard. Every successful working-class revolution has had a vanguard party. That speaks for itself far more than economist ramblings ever could.

Of course, if you take the anti-Soviet view, the Russian Revolution doesn't look like a success, but that's only because you apparently oppose all states, and thus working-class states as well. Such a position would condemn any organization that defended working-class gains with any semblance of efficiency, and so it is a position that holds neither usefulness nor relevance to the struggle for socialism.


You failed to comprehend the full meaning of what you yourself put in bold. Had the DPRK wanted to privatize, there were far better opportunities to do so. This is very much not what you are making it out to be. Not only is it not new (as you are claiming it is), not only is it not the sky-is-falling nonsense that every ultra-left has thrown about in this thread (the same people who hated the DPRK before any of these developments had been planned...which means they hate Korean socialism no matter what), but it is a tactical decision meant to improve economic relations with other countries, something the DPRK could use some more of.

Humorously enough, ultra-lefts love bashing the DPRK for isolating itself...and now that they're lessening said isolation, it's bashed as capitulation to capitalism. You couldn't make this crap up, such is the two-faced nature of ulta-left anti-socialism.

Which brings us to the most important point. Your argument consists of "the DPRK isn't a worker state because I said so". This lacks materialism, and further lacks sense. It is based entirely on imperialist propaganda against the DPRK, which includes a vast misunderstanding of what the DPRK actually is. You call its leadership "utterly counterrevolutionary family of crooks", a strong claim, but you give nothing to support this. Why? Because you feel no need to support it, as you feel anti-socialist slander is sufficient evidence for whatever you feel like saying.

So really, your argument is a giant straw-man. You imagine the DPRK to be whatever you want it to be, and then you criticize that illusion. Revolutionary politics has no place for such superficial drivel.

No, my argument lies in the fact that both nations' governments consist of politically authoritarian entities, agencies that undermine the potential for revolutionary action from the bottom in favor of enriching a select few. The whole concept of the revolutionary vanguard is near impossible, in that it stifles genuine worker action(s) and presents its vision for the people as the only vision worth achieving. It was the Russian people that organized themselves into self-proclaimed soviets and committees; it was the Bolsheviks and the coercive, heavy-handed nature of the state that disrupted these attempts - reorganizing them along pro-government lines that did away with any pretenses of workers' democracy and was over reliant on the state. The same happened in Spain, China, and numerous other countries where the masses were revolutionized and conscious of their needs. The need for a political vanguard is a holdover of old bourgeois thinking; that is, the belief that society can only successfully operate if there are leaders/rulers and people to be led/ruled over. Revolutions represent a complete and utter break with the old existing system(s) of oppression, doing away with the very structures that inhibit true revolutionary action. The state, by its very nature, cannot coexist with a revolutionized populace as it will always seek to reign in the guarantors of its destruction. Its reason for existence is to create and sustain an inequal system of power and privilege - as such, it has no place in any communist/socialist society. The governments of China and N. Korea are not keepers of the revolution. They betrayed that chance a long time ago. Why is it, when the workers in China rebel against poor working conditions, lack of political and social freedoms and the like, they are brutally repressed by the state government and military? Why, in the DPRK, do millions of Koreans live in poverty while a small handful of Party elites reap the benefits of their suffering? Why? These are repressive systems that put down the will of the proletariat in favor of fulfilling its own wshes and needs.

And quit it with all the "Western brainwashing" that makes China and the DPRK seem like brutal, oppressive places. The reality is they are. So is the West (and every other government in the world).

[manic expression]

I don't think having participated in SDS meetings or activities assigns me any magical bona fides, or magically qualifies one as substantive working towards communism, or think there is anything to dick-measure about. I was quite passive, and most people I knew in it were much more thoroughly involved. I sought more involvement, but a mentally imbalanced Brezhnevite stalked me (including going to the lengths of trying to recruit mods on this forum to help get me banned on the grounds of personal feud hearsay). That's why I'd never fly off the handle saying preposterous things because I've showed up at a march, held a sign, or spoken into a horn before, but I can't say the same for others belonging to other organizations. I would not say, and seek not to say, "I'm better than you because I'm a member of a revolutionary proletarian party [lol] and active! Did I mention how active I am?" I know it is impossible to understand for yo, but I do not think there is any place for me to be trying to compete for monastic bona fides like you do. You can't call me a hypocrite when, unlike you and yours, I don't think my belonging to some protest org makes me the big man. I'd like to help, I don't think it necessarily has much to do with communism or makes me a better person than others. No amount of conscious militants can organize and impart onto the working class, its struggle.
You were quite passive, you say? Well, that's a real surprise. But the important thing is that you know nothing about what you so naively criticized. You said of the PSL:

"College kids screaming about moral purism of their totally functionally fucking irrelevant "stances" on shit taking place conveniently 8000 miles too far for them to have to put up or shut up, eager to call out any opponents un-ironically as "pro-imperialist Westerners", and proudly pontificate that their petty bourgeois sect is an authentic revolutionary proletarian party in the model of Lenin's party...that qualifies as lifestylism to me just as much as absurd beliefs that avoiding meat is morally meaningful or that dumpster diving is defying capitalism."

I just called you out on your obvious hypocrisy, but that was merely the easiest route to showing that you're full of BS. If you had the slightest experience with the PSL, you'd know that just about every single word there is entirely incorrect. Being that as it may, I didn't feel like drawing you a picture, so I pointed out how ridiculous your criticisms are when you were part of an organization that was, by definition, nothing but "college kids screaming about moral purism". :lol:


How exactly are you sure the PSL is organically a proletarian organization? Do you recruit only from workplaces? Unions?
I can't think of one PSL member I've met who isn't proletarian. Yes, they are involved in recruiting from all sorts of areas, including the ones you mentioned.


As for SDS' activities, well, they seem to be essentially identical to the cross-class fronts set up by PSL, and virtually everyone I met in it had Brezhnevite politics which are virtually indistinguishable from yours.
:lol: Do you take classes on political numbness or something?

[manic expression]

No, my argument lies in the fact that both nations' governments consist of politically authoritarian entities, agencies that undermine the potential for revolutionary action from the bottom in favor of enriching a select few. The whole concept of the revolutionary vanguard is near impossible, in that it stifles genuine worker action(s) and presents its vision for the people as the only vision worth achieving. It was the Russian people that organized themselves into self-proclaimed soviets and committees; it was the Bolsheviks and the coercive, heavy-handed nature of the state that disrupted these attempts - reorganizing them along pro-government lines that did away with any pretenses of workers' democracy and was over reliant on the state. The same happened in Spain, China, and numerous other countries where the masses were revolutionized and conscious of their needs. The need for a political vanguard is a holdover of old bourgeois thinking; that is, the belief that society can only successfully operate if there are leaders/rulers and people to be led/ruled over. Revolutions represent a complete and utter break with the old existing system(s) of oppression, doing away with the very structures that inhibit true revolutionary action. The state, by its very nature, cannot coexist with a revolutionized populace as it will always seek to reign in the guarantors of its destruction. Its reason for existence is to create and sustain an inequal system of power and privilege - as such, it has no place in any communist/socialist society. The governments of China and N. Korea are not keepers of the revolution. They betrayed that chance a long time ago. Why is it, when the workers in China rebel against poor working conditions, lack of political and social freedoms and the like, they are brutally repressed by the state government and military? Why, in the DPRK, do millions of Koreans live in poverty while a small handful of Party elites reap the benefits of their suffering? Why? These are repressive systems that put down the will of the proletariat in favor of fulfilling its own wshes and needs.
First of all, this needs the enter key really bad.

Second, if you admit that you don't accept the reality of the revolutionary vanguard, then there's nothing really to talk about. You reject the premise of the modern revolution, so why would you defend a product of that same process? Further, it's interesting because you implied that the PRC was revolutionary but no longer is...and yet the CPC has always had a central role in the politics of the country. Why do you reject the revolutionary vanguard when you've already alluded to its capacity for creating revolutionary states?

Third, you're an anarchist. It's OK to admit it, there are many like you. But you should accept that fact and move on with your life...the sooner the better, actually. However, it means you'll never support a worker state, but you need to come to terms with that, not me.

Fourth, you're again buying into myths about those countries. There was a very deadly famine in the DPRK, but the situation has improved since then. We could get into specifics, but it will suffice to establish that it was no coincidence that a few years after the fall of European socialism (the DPRK's strongest allies), the DPRK was hit by famine. Blaming the DPRK is absurd, they were only trying to do what they could to get through the crisis.


And quit it with all the "Western brainwashing" that makes China and the DPRK seem like brutal, oppressive places. The reality is they are. So is the West (and every other government in the world).
Ummm...why? Because the oh-so-objective imperialist media told you so?

[ZeroNowhere]

Not exactly. See, I'm in a revolutionary working class party and I'm actually an active member.

http://www.moccasin.com.au/messandnoise/pot-kettle.jpg
At least armchairs contribute towards the overall well-being of the working class to some degree.


Pretty sure this isn't exclusive to PSL, though their members are the most vocal about their rrrevolutionary credentials. Almost all of the left is just filled with lifestylists.I once overthrew the bourgeois state. It got better, though.

[RED DAVE]

That's silly. Not all parties that are legal go into reformism, and of all the leftist parties in the world, the KWP and CPC are two parties who can't be accused of that with any shred of seriousness. They've been as illegalized, hunted down, banned and more as much as anyone you can name. Whatever your criticisms of those two organizations, being "legitimized" by the capitalist class is definitely not a valid perspective. In fact it's blatantly false.Gobbledy-gook. The same is true for the CPSU. Do you think that it's a leftist party nowadays or any other stalinist party in Europe?


A single party can create a workers' state just fine. Of course, the party doesn't do it alone, the class in general must be involved in the struggle and construction of socialism.So where was the working class in China? Why is it that when the working class rose in the cities, the Maoists told them to go back to work under their old bosses and not seize control? This has been documented here again and again.


However, the leadership role of the vanguard party is most comfortably confirmed by the record of history.It sure has. But that doesn't mean the revolution was socialist.


Every working-class revolution, bar none, has had a vanguard. Every successful working-class revolution has had a vanguard party. That speaks for itself far more than economist ramblings ever could.But what you are glossing over is that a vanguard party does not have to be Marxist, and the result does not have to be socialism. Look at Nicaragua, for example.

Of course, my real point is that the Chinese and North Korean parties did not lead working class revolutions. They led revolutions all right but the leading class in these revolutions was not the working class. Again, this has been shown here again and again.


Of course, if you take the anti-Soviet view, the Russian Revolution doesn't look like a success, but that's only because you apparently oppose all states, and thus working-class states as well. Such a position would condemn any organization that defended working-class gains with any semblance of efficiency, and so it is a position that holds neither usefulness nor relevance to the struggle for socialism.I get the impression that you are trying to slide through "organization that defended working-class gains with any semblance of efficiency" as a working class party. Slippery. Any social democratic party can do that.


You failed to comprehend the full meaning of what you yourself put in bold. Had the DPRK wanted to privatize, there were far better opportunities to do so. This is very much not what you are making it out to be. Not only is it not new (as you are claiming it is), not only is it not the sky-is-falling nonsense that every ultra-left has thrown about in this thread (the same people who hated the DPRK before any of these developments had been planned...which means they hate Korean socialism no matter what), but it is a tactical decision meant to improve economic relations with other countries, something the DPRK could use some more of.The DPRK is obvious selling its working class to China. State capitalism is making a deal with private capitalism. (Industry in China is now about 70% privately owned: about the same as in Russia.)


Humorously enough, ultra-lefts love bashing the DPRK for isolating itself...and now that they're lessening said isolation, it's bashed as capitulation to capitalism. You couldn't make this crap up, such is the two-faced nature of ulta-left anti-socialism.Oh they're coming out of isolation all right: as a state capitalist nation.


Which brings us to the most important point. Your argument consists of "the DPRK isn't a worker state because I said so". This lacks materialism, and further lacks sense. It is based entirely on imperialist propaganda against the DPRK, which includes a vast misunderstanding of what the DPRK actually is.Just imperialist propaganda. When you find the workers councils where the working class in the DPRK controls the economy, let us know.


You call its leadership "utterly counterrevolutionary family of crooks", a strong claim, but you give nothing to support this.Of course the following is imperialist propaganda:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7442188/Kim-Jong-il-keeps-4bn-emergency-fund-in-European-banks.html


Why? Because you feel no need to support it, as you feel anti-socialist slander is sufficient evidence for whatever you feel like saying.Just find us the workers councils and all is forgiven.


So really, your argument is a giant straw-man. You imagine the DPRK to be whatever you want it to be, and then you criticize that illusion. Revolutionary politics has no place for such superficial drivel.Revolutionary politics needs juice not juche.

In the meantime:


The joint development of the two economic zones in the DPRK will be "government-guided, enterprise-based and market-oriented," according to the press release.http://www.gov.cn/misc/2011-06/09/content_1880502.htm

Sounds like capitalism to me.

ETA: So does this:

Massive Workers Riots in China (http://www.revleft.com/vb/massive-workers-riots-t156363/index.html?t=156363)

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

Gobbledy-gook. The same is true for the CPSU. Do you think that it's a leftist party nowadays or any other stalinist party in Europe?
Incomprehensible question. Try again.


So where was the working class in China? Why is it that when the working class rose in the cities, the Maoists told them to go back to work under their old bosses and not seize control? This has been documented here again and again.
The Bolsheviks did much the same thing in the July Days.


It sure has. But that doesn't mean the revolution was socialist.
Saying it wasn't socialist means absolutely nothing. But we should come to expect such vapidity.


But what you are glossing over is that a vanguard party does not have to be Marxist, and the result does not have to be socialism. Look at Nicaragua, for example.
No, it doesn't have to be Marxist. I hold the anarchists in Catalunya to be a functioning vanguard.


Of course, my real point is that the Chinese and North Korean parties did not lead working class revolutions. They led revolutions all right but the leading class in these revolutions was not the working class. Again, this has been shown here again and again.
No, it hasn't, you're just making stuff up. The workers and peasants were undeniably involved as a central force in the Chinese Revolution and again in the establishment of the DPRK.


I get the impression that you are trying to slide through "organization that defended working-class gains with any semblance of efficiency" as a working class party. Slippery. Any social democratic party can do that.
I meant after a revolution.


The DPRK is obvious selling its working class to China. State capitalism is making a deal with private capitalism. (Industry in China is now about 70% privately owned: about the same as in Russia.)
So you would say the USSR under Lenin was "state capitalist"?


Oh they're coming out of isolation all right: as a state capitalist nation.
:lol: Yeah, cause you said so. Great logic. Why not just come out and say that you hate socialism?


Just imperialist propaganda. When you find the workers councils where the working class in the DPRK controls the economy, let us know.
Here ya go (http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/061st_issue/98091708.htm#Chapter%206:The%20Structure%20of%20th e%20State)


Of course the following is imperialist propaganda:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7442188/Kim-Jong-il-keeps-4bn-emergency-fund-in-European-banks.html
Of course it is. "zomg kim jong il eats babies!" Imperialist hysterics...nothing more. Too bad you're too dependent on the imperialist analysis to notice.


Revolutionary politics needs juice not juche.
Cute. Puns are no substitute for holding socialist politics, though.


In the meantime:

http://www.gov.cn/misc/2011-06/09/content_1880502.htm

Sounds like capitalism to me.
Everything sounds like capitalism to an ultra-left. Doesn't mean much in the end.


ETA: So does this:

Massive Workers Riots in China (http://www.revleft.com/vb/massive-workers-riots-t156363/index.html?t=156363)
Good thing, then, that no one claimed the PRC is perfect. Care to show us where they did? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what you're actually arguing against.

[Crux]

Good thing, then, that no one claimed the PRC is perfect. Care to show us where they did? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what you're actually arguing against.
Someone comparing present days china's economic policies to NEP under the Bolsheviks?

[RED DAVE]

Someone comparing present days china's economic policies to NEP under the Bolsheviks?Yeah, and chicken hawks are the same as chickens because they're both birds.

RED DAVE

[bailey_187]

Defenders of the Chinese state:

Is Imperialism, in short, the export of capital?

Does this count as the export of capital?

If this does not constitute the export of capital, do Chinese actions in Africa and Latin America?

[Le Socialiste]

First of all, this needs the enter key really bad.

Get over it.


Second, if you admit that you don't accept the reality of the revolutionary vanguard, then there's nothing really to talk about. You reject the premise of the modern revolution, so why would you defend a product of that same process? Further, it's interesting because you implied that the PRC was revolutionary but no longer is...and yet the CPC has always had a central role in the politics of the country. Why do you reject the revolutionary vanguard when you've already alluded to its capacity for creating revolutionary states?

What, no healthy debate? :rolleyes:

Your premise of the "modern revolution" is deeply flawed and historically unsustainable. The concepts and theories that contribute to the political vanguard can't hold up in a truly revolutionized society. Why? Because the vanguard relies on the presupposition that the populace requires "building up"/"leading". When the proletariat is aware of its basic and most demanding needs, and begins coordinating in ways that follow the revolutionary programs set out and detailed by it and its comrades, there is no need for vanguardism. Actually, I was never refering to a point in the PRC's history when I said China was once nearing revolutionary action. The moments in time that came to mind were the workers' revolts prior to the main revolution. But that's beside the point.


Third, you're an anarchist. It's OK to admit it, there are many like you. But you should accept that fact and move on with your life...the sooner the better, actually. However, it means you'll never support a worker state, but you need to come to terms with that, not me.


I'm going to make this quick: stop.


Fourth, you're again buying into myths about those countries. There was a very deadly famine in the DPRK, but the situation has improved since then. We could get into specifics, but it will suffice to establish that it was no coincidence that a few years after the fall of European socialism (the DPRK's strongest allies), the DPRK was hit by famine. Blaming the DPRK is absurd, they were only trying to do what they could to get through the crisis.

How does that change the fact that China and the DPRK are ruled over by oppressive, non-revolutionary regimes? How does that explain the rich lifestyles enjoyed by the top while the workers pay and suffer for it? How do you justify the reality that these states have done nothing to work towards a stateless, classless society - one built upon the foundations of a revolutionary socialism? The "vanguard"/new bourgeoisie in these countries are bleeding the proletariat dry so they can enjoy lives of luxury. There's no excuse(s) for this; stop making them.

[manic expression]

Get over it.
Looks like you took my advice. ;)


What, no healthy debate? :rolleyes:
If your idea of a "healthy debate" is me not arguing your fundamentally anti-materialist positions, you're in for a disappointment.


Your premise of the "modern revolution" is deeply flawed and historically unsustainable. The concepts and theories that contribute to the political vanguard can't hold up in a truly revolutionized society. Why? Because the vanguard relies on the presupposition that the populace requires "building up"/"leading". When the proletariat is aware of its basic and most demanding needs, and begins coordinating in ways that follow the revolutionary programs set out and detailed by it and its comrades, there is no need for vanguardism. Actually, I was never refering to a point in the PRC's history when I said China was once nearing revolutionary action. The moments in time that came to mind were the workers' revolts prior to the main revolution. But that's beside the point.
My analysis of modern revolution is nothing but an analysis. It's based only on what's worked in terms of expropriating the capitalists through working-class struggle...and of course, what hasn't. That means a vanguard, which is undeniably always present in revolutionary activities; that also means a vanguard party, which is likewise always present when said revolutionary activities succeed in overturning capitalist state power.

You, of course, are guilty of economism. You think that revolution will fall out of the sky without any real political activity. History, though, has shown this to be folly. Leadership is simply an inevitable consequence of class struggle, so it'll be there whether or not you admit it. Luxemburg? A leader. Durruti? A leader. And so on.

To apply your own jab in a meaningful way: leadership is part of revolution...GET OVER IT. :lol:


I'm going to make this quick: stop.
How good of you to put that word in blackened bold, the color of your movement. You admit that you oppose all states, you're an anarchist...get over it.


How does that change the fact that China and the DPRK are ruled over by oppressive, non-revolutionary regimes? How does that explain the rich lifestyles enjoyed by the top while the workers pay and suffer for it? How do you justify the reality that these states have done nothing to work towards a stateless, classless society - one built upon the foundations of a revolutionary socialism? The "vanguard"/new bourgeoisie in these countries are bleeding the proletariat dry so they can enjoy lives of luxury. There's no excuse(s) for this; stop making them.
More dovetailing with imperialist rhetoric. Throwing around buzzwords like "oppressive" isn't materialist, it's anarchistic moralism. Certainly, it's no surprise that you don't understand that classless societies cannot be built in one country...which is why the DPRK can't do all that much except build socialism as well as it can under the circumstances. Coincidentally enough, that's exactly what it's done.

In all, there's no excuse for not supporting a socialist country. Unless, of course, you admit that you're actually an anarchist.


Is Imperialism, in short, the export of capital?
Many countries exported capital long before the emergence of imperialism.


Someone comparing present days china's economic policies to NEP under the Bolsheviks?
Someone not taking the time to properly understand the context of a discussion?

[KC]

Hey look another thread where manic doesn't address anything everyone says then proclaims victory while shouting about his revolutionary credentials!

[Le Socialiste]

My analysis of modern revolution is nothing but an analysis. It's based only on what's worked in terms of expropriating the capitalists through working-class struggle...and of course, what hasn't. That means a vanguard, which is undeniably always present in revolutionary activities; that also means a vanguard party, which is likewise always present when said revolutionary activities succeed in overturning capitalist state power.

What's worked? In the twentieth century, numerous revolutions were attempted with little to no substantial gains for the proletariat. One of the few consistencies of these events were the presence of some kind of vanguardist organization, which inevitably led to systemic state suppression of the very people they claimed to emancipate. I don't care what one calls it - oppressive governments the world over have no place in power. It only leads to corruption, oppression, lack of freedoms and liberties, and little to no real important gains for the workers themselves. The statists in Russia oversaw a massive command structure that eventually could not sustain/maintain its own weight; the statists in Civil War-era Spain sought to quell any revolutionary body that the Soviets deemed unsuitable, breaking up most (if not all) of the worker-owned/run collectives, committees, and unions; the opportunistic reformists in Germany sold out the revolutionary potential of the worker in favor of an assured place in the government, which did nothing more than allow the Nazis/fascists to rise up; genuine worker-led revolts in China were swiftly put down by all functioning agencies working within the government in the early half of the century; the "vanguardists" in Cambodia carried out a systemic, brutal massacre of those who didn't fit their prescribed vision for all Cambodians; I beg of you - ask for more. I'd gladly continue. Vanguards don't ensure revolutionary victories. They only replace one oppressive system of government with another.



You, of course, are guilty of economism. You think that revolution will fall out of the sky without any real political activity. History, though, has shown this to be folly. Leadership is simply an inevitable consequence of class struggle, so it'll be there whether or not you admit it. Luxemburg? A leader. Durruti? A leader. And so on.

To apply your own jab in a meaningful way: leadership is part of revolution...GET OVER IT. :lol:

:confused:

When did I ever say that? I believe that there must be some level of revolutionary activity and understanding prior to any worker and people-led revolt. Of course they won't just "fall out of the sky". Real political activity, though, doesn't depend wholly on the political vanguard. It arises through shared consciousness and an awareness of social conditions, thus allowing for the propagation of communist/socialist ideas and programs. Leadership is different than a vanguard; the two are fundamentally different in their approach and goals. Leadership is an inevitable aspect of revolution - there's no way around that. The vanguard, however, is not a necessary component. Luxemburg and Durruti recognized that leadership doesn't belong in the hands of any one man or minority, it belongs with the masses. They opposed the creation of a state that inhibited the aspirations and goals of the proletariat and understood that true participatory democracy, built up by a socially and politically aware populace, can sustain and grow revolutionary activity.



How good of you to put that word in blackened bold, the color of your movement. You admit that you oppose all states, you're an anarchist...get over it.


If you wish to label me, I can't stop you. Frankly, it doesn't matter. I do oppose all states - what of it? Quit acting as though anarchism is the bane of all leftist activity and existence. It isn't. :rolleyes:



More dovetailing with imperialist rhetoric. Throwing around buzzwords like "oppressive" isn't materialist, it's anarchistic moralism. Certainly, it's no surprise that you don't understand that classless societies cannot be built in one country...which is why the DPRK can't do all that much except build socialism as well as it can under the circumstances. Coincidentally enough, that's exactly what it's done.

In all, there's no excuse for not supporting a socialist country. Unless, of course, you admit that you're actually an anarchist.

China and the DPRK are not socialist countries! And since when does being an anarchist prohibit one from supporting leftist activities? I don't care what you prescribe to ideologically, so long as it contributes to the class struggle and the furtherance of our movement.

[Jose Gracchus]

Here ya go (http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/061st_issue/98091708.htm#Chapter%206:The%20Structure%20of%20th e%20State)


Wow, and here I thought it was only Tea Partiers who indulged the "Argument from Enchanted Parchment".

[Crux]

So let me get this straight, anyone implying the DPRK is opressive is an imperialist tool, yet you are not sycophantly defending the DPRK but verry "materialist" in your unquestioning defence of the "vanguard parties" of CPC and KWP.
Riddle me this, what is your "materialist" understanding of the leadership of said parties and their material position within their states? I know you occationally, when cornered, hint at being somehow "critical", but I would love and see you try and specify that.

[bailey_187]

so manic, u accept that this is the export of capital?

so its extending capitalist economic relations to somewhere that (in ur opinion) they dont exist?

[black magick hustla]

manic has shitty music taste and the theoretical sophistication of a rotting pineapple dont bother to ask him questions like that join my "three piece ultraleft circus" instead

[Revy]

A capitalist country, helping a capitalist country, to grow its capitalist economy.

[manic expression]

manic has shitty music taste and the theoretical sophistication of a rotting pineapple dont bother to ask him questions like that join my "three piece ultraleft circus" instead
Maybe you could surprise us and write something that doesn't belong on a teenage AIM chat. Probably not going to happen, though.


so manic, u accept that this is the export of capital?

so its extending capitalist economic relations to somewhere that (in ur opinion) they dont exist?
We can't dabble in generalities. If you really think that any economic cooperation between two countries equals capitalism, then say so outright.


Wow, and here I thought it was only Tea Partiers who indulged the "Argument from Enchanted Parchment".
You're the one who thinks that words on paper don't matter...unless you say they matter. Your rejection of the importance of socialist law is only as nonsensical as your naked inconsistency.


So let me get this straight, anyone implying the DPRK is opressive is an imperialist tool, yet you are not sycophantly defending the DPRK but verry "materialist" in your unquestioning defence of the "vanguard parties" of CPC and KWP.
Obviously, my defense of those vanguards is not "unquestioning", since I greatly question many of the decisions and positions taken by the CPC and KWP over the decades. Your inability to grasp trifles such as subtlety and the principle of democratic centralism denies you the opportunity to see an argument for what it is.


Riddle me this, what is your "materialist" understanding of the leadership of said parties and their material position within their states? I know you occationally, when cornered, hint at being somehow "critical", but I would love and see you try and specify that.
When am I critical of the CPC or KWP? Let's see...the Sino-Soviet Split is something I abhor, the Great Leap Forward was ill-advised and ill-planned at best, the GPCR got way out of hand and by 1970 or so started signalling a drift to the right, Deng's economic "reforms" have ended up straining the socialist foundation of the PRC a great deal. On the KWP...well the response to the 1990's crisis wasn't ideal (although many of the mistakes were IMO quasi-desperation measures that had very few alternatives, if any), agitprop outreach to the workers of the world could be better, that bombing of the passenger plane in the 70's (IIRC) was unacceptable IMO.

So yeah, I am critical...but criticism of comrades doesn't mean I condemn them and abandon them. That's not how communism works...you criticize your fellow revolutionaries but you still support them and defend them; and you definitely don't go and throw imperialist rhetoric around like confetti.


What's worked? In the twentieth century, numerous revolutions were attempted with little to no substantial gains for the proletariat.
Yeah, all those objective gains like liberation of workers from capitalism and the resulting improvements in life in numerous countries the world over never happened. :confused:


When did I ever say that? I believe that there must be some level of revolutionary activity and understanding prior to any worker and people-led revolt. Of course they won't just "fall out of the sky". Real political activity, though, doesn't depend wholly on the political vanguard. It arises through shared consciousness and an awareness of social conditions, thus allowing for the propagation of communist/socialist ideas and programs. Leadership is different than a vanguard; the two are fundamentally different in their approach and goals.
But that's my point.... "Shared consciousness" doesn't just happen, it comes about from (at least partially) political activity of the most politically advanced members of the class. That, whatever you want to call it, is a vanguard. Again, leadership in terms of revolutionary activity is a vanguard. Feel free to call it something that makes you feel good, but it is what it is.


If you wish to label me, I can't stop you. Frankly, it doesn't matter. I do oppose all states - what of it? Quit acting as though anarchism is the bane of all leftist activity and existence. It isn't. :rolleyes:
No, it's not the bane of all leftist activity, but it isn't Marxism. I'm not saying being an anarchist is bad, I'm just calling a spade a spade.


China and the DPRK are not socialist countries! And since when does being an anarchist prohibit one from supporting leftist activities? I don't care what you prescribe to ideologically, so long as it contributes to the class struggle and the furtherance of our movement.
Of course they're socialist. Their fundamental composition is not that of a capitalist country, for no capitalist class holds power in either.

But yeah, I agree with you on the ideological point.

[Revolutionair]

the first time a foreign buyer has purchased a Chinese satellite and its launching service.





























the first time a foreign buyer has purchased a Chinese satellite and its launching service.











































the first time a foreign buyer has purchased a Chinese satellite and its launching service.

sup

[Chambered Word]

manic has shitty music taste and the theoretical sophistication of a rotting pineapple dont bother to ask him questions like that join my "three piece ultraleft circus" instead

Being the same guy who thinks the Belarussian state is not upholding any particular class interests, you have to wonder whether he's actually a Leninist or in fact a Kautskyist of some sort (as in, an ideological descendant of the same guy whose views on the state Lenin theoretically curb-stomped around a century ago).

[manic expression]

Being the same guy who thinks the Belarussian state is not upholding any particular class interests, you have to wonder whether he's actually a Leninist or in fact a Kautskyist of some sort (as in, an ideological descendant of the same guy whose views on the state Lenin theoretically curb-stomped around a century ago).
Yeah, that´s the spirit...don´t deal with the issue, just bring up something unrelated as a distraction. That way, you won´t have to worry about facts or anything annoying like that.

Ultraleft mention of Stalin/Venezuela/Krondstadt/cotton candy in 3...2...1...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Its funny because you haven't posted any 'facts', Manic, just your lame and arrogant interpretation of China and NK, throwing in 'materialist' here and there to make it sound as if what you're saying has any kind of thought process behind it. Le Socialiste's post that I just liked has trumped you, yet your reply (I think it was meant to be a reply) didn't even address it.

Your whole style of debate can be summarized as 'I'm right because I'm a Marxist and no other reason, so shut up you anarchist'. Its just embarrassing when commies go on about materialism and the like when half of the time the stuff they come out with is their own subjective view of something based on some articles they've read by the organization they submit to. You wouldn't know materialism if it came and analyzed the pants off of you.

[bailey_187]

We can't dabble in generalities. If you really think that any economic cooperation between two countries equals capitalism, then say so outright.


bruv i swear what kind of a dickhead are u avoiding the questions, smh

ok ok mans going to spell it out like im some dickhead

1)you accept that some capitalist relations exist in China, even though it isnt capitalist?
2)there exists little capitalist relations to speak of DPRK?
3)this economic zone will include the exetention some of the capital elements in China i.e. industry in which surplus-value is extracted by private indiividuals, to the DPRK
4)so these new relations, which include the relation of capital, are being extended to an area they previously did not exist/were abolished
5)imperialism is the extension of capitalist relations around the world?

http://www.catchmebc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/son.jpg

Face reality. China is a state that is involved in the export of capital and extension of capitalist relations around the world. Its an imperialist power.

[manic expression]

Its funny because you haven't posted any 'facts', Manic, just your lame and arrogant interpretation of China and NK, throwing in 'materialist' here and there to make it sound as if what you're saying has any kind of thought process behind it. Le Socialiste's post that I just liked has trumped you, yet your reply (I think it was meant to be a reply) didn't even address it.

Your whole style of debate can be summarized as 'I'm right because I'm a Marxist and no other reason, so shut up you anarchist'. Its just embarrassing when commies go on about materialism and the like when half of the time the stuff they come out with is their own subjective view of something based on some articles they've read by the organization they submit to. You wouldn't know materialism if it came and analyzed the pants off of you.
My response to Le Socialiste's post (which, funnily enough, isn't so chock-full of facts as you'd like to believe) addressed the fundamental problems in their analysis, which includes pointing out where we simply diverge in opinion. Le Socialiste said clearly that s/he opposes "all states", and so it's worth noting that s/he is an anarchist, pure and simple. Following from this, we can comfortably conclude that Le Socialiste's opposition to the DPRK is a matter of course, as all worker states are inevitably states. In essence, the DPRK isn't being condemned because it's not a socialist state, it's being condemned because it's a state. Such a position has its place, I suppose, but it has no place in Marxism, and it is of little use to socialists who promote the establishment of working-class state power.

But of course you knew all that.


1)you accept that some capitalist relations exist in China, even though it isnt capitalist?
Yes.


2)there exists little capitalist relations to speak of DPRK?
Right.


3)this economic zone will include the exetention some of the capital elements in China i.e. industry in which surplus-value is extracted by private indiividuals, to the DPRK
It is under the auspices and control of the KWP. Economic cooperation with a country with capitalist elements does not translate automatically to "exetention some of the capital elements". We know this because the USSR worked with fully capitalist countries in many areas and did not see a fundamental shift in its social relations (when that shift did come, it came as a result of factors other than working with Fiat, for example).

So you can't draw such a simplistic line and expect it to hold water. I think the authority of the KWP over this process, along with its willing cooperation with the PRC are two factors that override most others.

Of course, I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you. However, I think the history of socialism in practice indicates that this is definitely not what you are painting it as (as in China inexorably expanding capitalism into the DPRK).


4)so these new relations, which include the relation of capital, are being extended to an area they previously did not exist/were abolished
Whatever relations are introduced, the DPRK looks as though it will strongly retain its state monopoly on foreign trade. Is that somehow not the case?


5)imperialism is the extension of capitalist relations around the world?
I thought I had addressed this. Imperialism isn't just the extension of capitalist relations around the world. Were that the case, then the whole of the 1800's would have been the most imperialist period in the history of humanity. But suffice to say that certainly isn't the case.

[bailey_187]

lol ur whole argument is based of your already debatable assertions, its funny

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Considering many of the richest Russian businessmen and most corrupt CIS autocrats are ex-Soviet Communist party members, I think manic should have less faith in the honest intentions of members of a "Worker's Party".

[Crux]

I thought I had addressed this. Imperialism isn't just the extension of capitalist relations around the world. Were that the case, then the whole of the 1800's would have been the most imperialist period in the history of humanity. But suffice to say that certainly isn't the case.
Ehum. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm)

[Crux]

Obviously, my defense of those vanguards is not "unquestioning", since I greatly question many of the decisions and positions taken by the CPC and KWP over the decades. Your inability to grasp trifles such as subtlety and the principle of democratic centralism denies you the opportunity to see an argument for what it is.
Oh I was unaware you were under the party discipline of KWP and CPC.



When am I critical of the CPC or KWP? Let's see...the Sino-Soviet Split is something I abhor, the Great Leap Forward was ill-advised and ill-planned at best, the GPCR got way out of hand and by 1970 or so started signalling a drift to the right, Deng's economic "reforms" have ended up straining the socialist foundation of the PRC a great deal. On the KWP...well the response to the 1990's crisis wasn't ideal (although many of the mistakes were IMO quasi-desperation measures that had very few alternatives, if any), agitprop outreach to the workers of the world could be better, that bombing of the passenger plane in the 70's (IIRC) was unacceptable IMO.

So yeah, I am critical...but criticism of comrades doesn't mean I condemn them and abandon them. That's not how communism works...you criticize your fellow revolutionaries but you still support them and defend them; and you definitely don't go and throw imperialist rhetoric around like confetti.

I'll answer this in a bit. I have a job interview to prepare for so consider this a holding post.

[manic expression]

lol ur whole argument is based of your already debatable assertions, its funny
lol ur whole argument is lyk t3h debunkd lolololol!!!!!!!!!elevenz!!!


Oh I was unaware you were under the party discipline of KWP and CPC.
It's about not condemning comrades just because you disagree on points.


Ehum. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm)
In which work Lenin explains how the 1800's weren't imperialist, hence my point.


Considering many of the richest Russian businessmen and most corrupt CIS autocrats are ex-Soviet Communist party members, I think manic should have less faith in the honest intentions of members of a "Worker's Party".
It has nothing to do with honest intentions, it is far more about position and relationship to class struggle. The CPSU was, in spite of all its noted careerists and future capitalists, maintaining a progressive role not only in the USSR but in the world. The socialist fundamentals of the Soviet Union allowed it to function as such. So I don't dispute what you're saying, but I say that the overall system, while definitely not ideal (compared to, say, the PCC and Cuban socialism), overcame the ambitions of those individuals and denied them the opportunity to do what they wanted until it collapsed.

After all, the Bolsheviks had bourgeois agents and spies within their ranks as well.

[Chambered Word]

Yeah, that´s the spirit...don´t deal with the issue, just bring up something unrelated as a distraction. That way, you won´t have to worry about facts or anything annoying like that.

Ultraleft mention of Stalin/Venezuela/Krondstadt/cotton candy in 3...2...1...

I wasn't claiming to address anything you said, neither do I have the patience right now to type out responses to every single fallacious and tangential argument fig leaf argument you spit out.

You can't just slap 'ultraleft' on every single argument you disagree with, unless you're prepared to explain exactly how it's ultraleft.

I eagerly await actual facts from you, however.

[manic expression]

I wasn't claiming to address anything you said,
Well put.

[KC]

ZING you definitely won that one manic, you're a real revolutionary unlike that fake revolutionary Chambered Wound, who can't even match your internet forum skillz!

[Revy]

I wasn't claiming to address anything you said, neither do I have the patience right now to type out responses to every single fallacious and tangential argument fig leaf argument you spit out.

You can't just slap 'ultraleft' on every single argument you disagree with, unless you're prepared to explain exactly how it's ultraleft.

I eagerly await actual facts from you, however.

It's ultra-left to oppose capitalist economic growth. After all, China needs to become a capitalist superpower before it can become socialist. Sometime around 2269, China will finally be "ready" for socialism.

North Korea is just developing its economy. Which is still socialist under the guidance of the communist Workers' Party. But they need to grow the economy to have the same prosperity as South Korea, but not as a capitalist state like South Korea, but a socialist workers' paradise.

Does this make any sense yet? Or should I include some weird poetic language like "Socialist roses blooming in meadows of international friendship under the eternal sun of Juche"?

[manic expression]

ZING you definitely won that one manic, you're a real revolutionary unlike that fake revolutionary Chambered Wound, who can't even match your internet forum skillz!
Yeah, I really showed "Chambered Wound"... :lol:


It's ultra-left to oppose capitalist economic growth. After all, China needs to become a capitalist superpower before it can become socialist. Sometime around 2269, China will finally be "ready" for socialism.
Sarcasm, as I assume you are attempting to employ, only works when you grasp the argument in question. My position, at least, is that the growth of capitalist elements in the PRC must be opposed; that also means that the socialist foundations of the PRC must be supported and defended. So it's rather the opposite of what you're projecting.

[bailey_187]

if the capitalist elements must be opposed, do u oppose this? u dont seem to...

[manic expression]

if the capitalist elements must be opposed, do u oppose this? u dont seem to...
Of course I oppose them. I am for the liquidation of capitalist elements in the PRC. However, that doesn't mean I condemn the country outright, for there remains a socialist foundation. In other words, the PRC may be deformed, but a deformed worker state merits the support of all progressives.

At any rate, it is abundantly clear that the fall of the PRC would be a gargantuan defeat for the workers of the world, and we know this from the experience of the fall of the USSR. Even the most anti-Soviet left communists admit that the 1990's were a terrible time for the cause of the workers, and it's no surprise that that same decade opened with the fall of the Soviet Union. All socialist countries must be defended at every step.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

At any rate, it is abundantly clear that the fall of the PRC would be a gargantuan defeat for the workers of the world, and we know this from the experience of the fall of the USSR. Even the most anti-Soviet left communists admit that the 1990's were a terrible time for the cause of the workers, and it's no surprise that that same decade opened with the fall of the Soviet Union. All socialist countries must be defended at every step.

The Soviet Union of the early 90's and today's China are not directly comparable. Whether one accepts the SU' as socialist or state-capitalist, it was clear that the economy was not on the usual common capitalist terms. In China, however, that is abundantly clear, and I would like to see you argue for, what, in concise terms, would become worse for the Chinese workers if the CPC rule collapsed? They have little in the way of employment rights, they have no public health care free of charge, most of the gains of the past have been sold, so what is left to rob them of?

I think that the CPC's collapse would bring little change in substance. We'd see multi-party democracy and similar things, but the actual structure would remain largely unchanged, save perhaps a handful of meaningless law changes here and there to pacify external criticism against "freedom of speech" and similar and improve the appearance and "image".

[RED DAVE]

... the actual structure would remain largely unchanged ... Same is true for the USSR. A change in benefits is not the same as a change in structure. The working class was exploited in the USSR, and it was exploited after it fell.

Would you argue that Britain would be changed of they got rid of the NHS or the USA would be changed if it got one?

RED DAVE

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Same is true for the USSR. A change in benefits is not the same as a change in structure. The working class was exploited in the USSR, and it was exploited after it fell.

Would you argue that Britain would be changed of they got rid of the NHS or the USA would be changed if it got one?


I'm not going to get into that shitstorm. Although I somewhat agree, there is a difference between the Soviet Union and modern China, as evident by the economic turbulence which the end brought on, which I do not think would happen in China (though I do not mean to imply that this absolutely means that late SSSR was socialist, either), as I said, whether you consider it socialism or not, the collapse resulted in many negative results for the general population and social upheaval, which are unlikely to happen if the CPC was to collapse in China.

Please don't digress this into more of that sectarian war.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

To Manic Expression: A fall in the PRC would be a fall for workers all over the world? Do you know how many billionaires there are in Shanghai? And do you know how shitty working conditions are in China for the proletarians that feed these billionaires with their labour?

How far does a 'deformed worker's state' deform until you admit it is a bourgeois capitalist state? China, just like America, needs a working-class revolution to take the means of production away from those billionaires and put them into the hands of the workers that slave away in terrible conditions. Those 'socialist' foundations you are talking about are long gone, and barely remain in the shadows of the skyscrapers that span across Shanghai, in which ueber rich capitalists live and laugh at the idiots who still think China shows any glimmer of hope to the workers. For the sake of the working class and for communism, give up with this naive 'anti-imperialism' and oppose capitalism in favour of a stateless and classless society.

[manic expression]

The Soviet Union of the early 90's and today's China are not directly comparable. Whether one accepts the SU' as socialist or state-capitalist, it was clear that the economy was not on the usual common capitalist terms. In China, however, that is abundantly clear, and I would like to see you argue for, what, in concise terms, would become worse for the Chinese workers if the CPC rule collapsed? They have little in the way of employment rights, they have no public health care free of charge, most of the gains of the past have been sold, so what is left to rob them of?

I think that the CPC's collapse would bring little change in substance. We'd see multi-party democracy and similar things, but the actual structure would remain largely unchanged, save perhaps a handful of meaningless law changes here and there to pacify external criticism against "freedom of speech" and similar and improve the appearance and "image".
Let's look at merely one area: the national question. At present, the many nationalities of the PRC hold the right of self-determination, and in some cases minorities are in possession of special privileges. In all, friction and hatred between nationalities is not a significant problem at present. Were the CPC to fall, what would follow would make the Yugoslavian wars look like a nice Sunday picnic. The "balkanization" of China, something that would inevitably happen under capitalist rule, would be catastrophic on its best day. 56 different peoples would be at one another's throat, fighting tooth-and-nail for supremacy in this or that region.

That's just one example of how a final fall of socialism in the PRC would be an immense blow against the working class.

[manic expression]

Same is true for the USSR. A change in benefits is not the same as a change in structure. The working class was exploited in the USSR, and it was exploited after it fell.

Would you argue that Britain would be changed of they got rid of the NHS or the USA would be changed if it got one?
Nothing but petty reductionism by someone who can't bring themselves to analyze societies properly. And it's off-topic. So, clearly, this nonsense isn't worth anyone's time.


How far does a 'deformed worker's state' deform until you admit it is a bourgeois capitalist state?
Until it is no longer a worker state at all. Namely, IMO, if the vanguard party no longer holds its central role in the PRC political sphere. This is important because so long as it remains the case, the reactionary changes that came through the party can be reversed through that same party. In fact, it's the most likely and practical avenue for such progress. The rank-and-file of the CPC, which is immense, is largely proletarian. We must look to them for progress.

As far as your first argument, you can see my answer to Takayuki. Just because there are billionaires in Shanghai due to the deformities and anti-progressive course of the PRC doesn't mean it wouldn't be far, far worse under the rule of a capitalist class. Your viewpoint would be like saying that since the leaking flood gate is letting in water, it would make no difference if the whole thing was blown to bits.

[Per Levy]

Until it is no longer a worker state at all. Namely, IMO, if the vanguard party no longer holds its central role in the PRC political sphere. This is important because so long as it remains the case, the reactionary changes that came through the party can be reversed through that same party. In fact, it's the most likely and practical avenue for such progress. The rank-and-file of the CPC, which is immense, is largely proletarian. We must look to them for progress.

maybe im just pessimistic but thats highly naiv thinking, i mean why should the party change to be more socialist again? because its basis is "largely proletarian"? come on these "proletarians" most likely just want to rise in the party ranks to get a better social status not to make things better for the workers or the peasents.


As far as your first argument, you can see my answer to Takayuki. Just because there are billionaires in Shanghai due to the deformities and anti-progressive course of the PRC doesn't mean it wouldn't be far, far worse under the rule of a capitalist class. Your viewpoint would be like saying that since the leaking flood gate is letting in water, it would make no difference if the whole thing was blown to bits.well i think that these "flood gates" allready are blown to bits, you have a "communist" party that supports the exploitation of the workers through big corporations from all over the world, the rights of the workers are laughable, workers in china are killing themself because of the bad working conditions. and there is no sign at all that the "communist" party even atemps to make things better for the workers.


All socialist countries must be defended at every step.

even if these "socialists" states bring back capitalism?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That's a load of bullshit frankly. You're a dreamer if you think any kind of socialism is going to come from the CPC. The change will come from below, as the state is merely the source of power that serves to preserve the socio-economic relations inherent in China - capitalistic socio-economic relations. It is a bourgeois state, the labour relations that workers in China have are the same labour relations that we have in the West, qualitatively, and for socialism to be realised, the oppressed class must overthrow the ruling class and restructure the socio-economic relations so that they run according to actual socialist principles.

In this regard, are you saying that you see the Chinese state as the principle force for establishing socialism in China instead of the actual proletariat? Would you not favour a working-class uprising against the state, based on socialist principles?

Some of you Stalinists have a cheek to call yourselves Marxists, and I say that as an anarchist. Wackos...

[KC]

The rank-and-file of the CPC, which is immense, is largely proletarian. We must look to them for progress.

So is the rank-and-file of the democrats. This is meaningless in and of itself.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Oh, and don't forget the Labour Party in Britain has a large working class vote and activist base - should we have hope in them bringing about socialism in Britain? Because they have a working class base and 'socialism' in their statement?

[KC]

Not to mention the fact that the CCP is essentially the only party in existence in China, so of course it's going to have a significant representation in the population...

[scarletghoul]

China is a capitalist country obviously, and has now become an imperialist country too as we can see from its actions in Korea, Africa, and elsewhere. However, North Korea is still a socialist country, however imperfect its political organisation may be and however revisionist its ideology may be.. It is socialist because it is organised for the collective good of the people and there seems to be considerable workers' power.

But yeah socialism is unsustainable given the present conditions (a deprived country surrounded by rich capitalist/imperialist powers),, so we can see capitalist economics creeping in.. I dont think the situation is hopeless though; if a new world socialist revolution begins and more territory is liberated and socialist states set up then DPRKorea could find socialist allies and support and therefore be under less pressure to cave in to capitalism/imperialism. This is definitely a possibility in the next decade or so.. I think the DPRK government for all their faults hasnt been given enough credit for the fact that theyve preserved a socialistic system with no significant allies for 2 decades, when they could easily have dissolved it into oligarch capitalism like most other commie countries. But yeah, it is really up to the international proletariat imo,, Korea can only hang on for so long

It is the same with Cuba.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Let's look at merely one area: the national question. At present, the many nationalities of the PRC hold the right of self-determination, and in some cases minorities are in possession of special privileges. In all, friction and hatred between nationalities is not a significant problem at present. Were the CPC to fall, what would follow would make the Yugoslavian wars look like a nice Sunday picnic. The "balkanization" of China, something that would inevitably happen under capitalist rule, would be catastrophic on its best day. 56 different peoples would be at one another's throat, fighting tooth-and-nail for supremacy in this or that region.

That's just one example of how a final fall of socialism in the PRC would be an immense blow against the working class.

I don't think this is certain to be the case. China was unified more or less long before 1949, and whether or not there would be problems of that matter would depend on several things, including but not limited to the new government's dealings to instil minority nationalities and communities with a feeling of cohesion and economic support.


Until it is no longer a worker state at all. Namely, IMO, if the vanguard party no longer holds its central role in the PRC political sphere.

The Capitalist Party of China is the vanguard of capitalism, of imperialism.


Just because there are billionaires in Shanghai due to the deformities and anti-progressive course of the PRC doesn't mean it wouldn't be far, far worse under the rule of a capitalist class.

Are you suggesting the current rulers of China is something other than members of the capitalist class? They allow millionaires into the CPC; people join the party to get business connections, isn't that kind of... strange? Why would it be worse? You mentioned ethnic infighting as possible, but what about economically, what would change from the current situation where, with approval from the Chinese state, foreign and domestic capitalists can basically do whatever they want to workers, and the cities are riddled with speculation housing for the growing bourgeoisie and the new rich in gated communities surrounded by high walls (a common sign of a very conflicting and unequal society plagued by social friction), where belts of McMansions are strew over former fields like candy for the rich to live secluded and safe from those less fortunate elements they so much loathe... Who rules China, if not capitalists? The parts of the CPC with any real power are through and through capitalists. Economic policy set in collusion with IMF advisor's for the last 30 years--

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh, and don't forget the Labour Party in Britain has a large working class vote and activist base - should we have hope in them bringing about socialism in Britain? Because they have a working class base and 'socialism' in their statement?

Actually I don't necessarily rule-out the "deep entryism" tactics done by certain Trot groups in Britain in the past with Old Labour, though of course such tactics would be useless with New Labour.

On the CCP rank-and-file: there is still some scope of political activism within the CCP structure, but it's very limited in the concrete sense. In fact, many of the illegal political parties in China today, like the Maoist Communist Party of China, largely consist of ex-CCP members. So a lot of the time in order to be politically active, one would have to establish some kind of new political organisation outside the current CCP anyway. I certainly don't agree with the dogmatic line of unconditionally staying within the CCP at all times, which would frankly be strategic suicide.

[manic expression]

maybe im just pessimistic but thats highly naiv thinking, i mean why should the party change to be more socialist again? because its basis is "largely proletarian"? come on these "proletarians" most likely just want to rise in the party ranks to get a better social status not to make things better for the workers or the peasents.
As I said before, the basis is largely proletarian, and the CPC's position in the PRC allows it the power to roll back every single reactionary "reform" that's gone on the past few decades. Legally and practically, it can happen, and indeed it would be the most viable way it would happen. Whatever progress there is to be made in the PRC, it will come from within the CPC for exactly those reasons.


well i think that these "flood gates" allready are blown to bits, you have a "communist" party that supports the exploitation of the workers through big corporations from all over the world, the rights of the workers are laughable, workers in china are killing themself because of the bad working conditions. and there is no sign at all that the "communist" party even atemps to make things better for the workers.
Those are all results of the "reforms" that can be rolled back by the CPC. Those are all leaks. The flood gate still stands intact, and its fall would only bring something 1000x more terrible than the leaks that are there now.


even if these "socialists" states bring back capitalism?
They haven't fully, as of yet. If they had, there would be no foundation of a worker state.


That's a load of bullshit frankly. You're a dreamer if you think any kind of socialism is going to come from the CPC. The change will come from below, as the state is merely the source of power that serves to preserve the socio-economic relations inherent in China - capitalistic socio-economic relations. It is a bourgeois state, the labour relations that workers in China have are the same labour relations that we have in the West, qualitatively, and for socialism to be realised, the oppressed class must overthrow the ruling class and restructure the socio-economic relations so that they run according to actual socialist principles.
Um, yeah, first of all, I did say we should look to the proletarian rank-and-file of the CPC, so don't lecture me about "from below" (ignoring that it's used as a meaningless phrase). Second, you're engaging in all sorts of liberal anti-power assumptions; "the state" only "preserves itself"...this is false, because class is what drives history, not some abstract love of power. Third, the political structure of the PRC is very much not "what we have in the West", and any half-attentive observer will confirm as much regardless of personal ideology. To be specific, the CPC has the ability to dictate terms to the capitalist class in the PRC, not the other way around, and so we cannot ignore this potential for progress.


In this regard, are you saying that you see the Chinese state as the principle force for establishing socialism in China instead of the actual proletariat? Would you not favour a working-class uprising against the state, based on socialist principles?
The Chinese state is the product of a proletarian revolution. It remains so. That is why we can look to the state and the vanguard party. Your inability to observe the class character of the Chinese Revolution is what is failing you here.


Some of you Stalinists have a cheek to call yourselves Marxists, and I say that as an anarchist. Wackos...
Yeah, you're really the first and last word on Marxism. Got it. :rolleyes:


So is the rank-and-file of the democrats. This is meaningless in and of itself.
Did the Democrats lead a socialist revolution in the US? Did they lead the construction of socialism there? Do they have the position to essentially do away with the capitalist class if they so decide it?


Not to mention the fact that the CCP is essentially the only party in existence in China, so of course it's going to have a significant representation in the population...
The dynamics of a vanguard party lend itself to such a situation, and that is why it possesses the potential for progress, as I've explained.


I don't think this is certain to be the case. China was unified more or less long before 1949, and whether or not there would be problems of that matter would depend on several things, including but not limited to the new government's dealings to instil minority nationalities and communities with a feeling of cohesion and economic support.
I haven't yet seen an example of a worker state falling and not leading to serious ethnic strife. As if Yugoslavia wasn't proof enough, how about the tragedy in the Caucasus or Chechnya or the Baltic states? How about the insane rise in neo-fascism in the former DDR? How about Slovakia banning the public use of Hungarian even in areas that are majority Hungarian-speaking?

We've seen it time and again. The collapse of worker states, no matter how deformed, leads to the insanity of nationalist strife. All the ideas of capitalist "competition" are applied to peoples, all the ambitions of divide and conquer are thrust upon the workers like an iron fist. We've seen it before, and rest assured we would see it again if not for the preservation of socialist elements in the PRC.


The Capitalist Party of China is the vanguard of capitalism, of imperialism.
Technically speaking, it isn't. Ignoring the anti-materialist "imperialism" jab, it's not a vanguard of capitalist whatsoever. It's allowed the growth of capitalist elements to go on, and many of its members have reaped the benefits...but to call it a vanguard of capitalism would be to turn a blind eye to its actual position in the PRC. It holds power because the capitalist class does not. Until that changes, the possibility remains that the CPC can take a progressive course and liquidate the capitalist elements in the PRC.


Are you suggesting the current rulers of China is something other than members of the capitalist class? They allow millionaires into the CPC; people join the party to get business connections, isn't that kind of... strange? Why would it be worse? You mentioned ethnic infighting as possible, but what about economically, what would change from the current situation where, with approval from the Chinese state, foreign and domestic capitalists can basically do whatever they want to workers, and the cities are riddled with speculation housing for the growing bourgeoisie and the new rich in gated communities surrounded by high walls (a common sign of a very conflicting and unequal society plagued by social friction), where belts of McMansions are strew over former fields like candy for the rich to live secluded and safe from those less fortunate elements they so much loathe... Who rules China, if not capitalists? The parts of the CPC with any real power are through and through capitalists. Economic policy set in collusion with IMF advisor's for the last 30 years--
First, we should finalize our discussion on the example I gave (ethnic warfare). But anyway, the CPSU had people join it for careerism...it doesn't mean its fall was anything to cheer. Economically speaking, the PRC is presently limiting capitalist growth in some areas; take out the CPC and that all goes away. Basically, if you think "the growing bourgeoisie and the new rich in gated communities" is bad now...you ain't seen nothin yet. Everything you mentioned would get far, far worse very quickly. You're saying that the leaks in the flood gate are evidence that we should just blow it up because they're no difference...well there would be one.

After all, the PRC is restricting (http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/dollar-higher-as-china-restrict-exports/story-e6frfkur-1225977721484)
capitalist growth in some areas (http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/china-rolls-up-welcome-mat-for-us-firms.html)
and this should be recognized (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HF09Cb05.html)

[Crux]

Those are all results of the "reforms" that can be rolled back by the CPC. Those are all leaks. The flood gate still stands intact, and its fall would only bring something 1000x more terrible than the leaks that are there now.


They haven't fully, as of yet. If they had, there would be no foundation of a worker state.


Um, yeah, first of all, I did say we should look to the proletarian rank-and-file of the CPC, so don't lecture me about "from below" (ignoring that it's used as a meaningless phrase). Second, you're engaging in all sorts of liberal anti-power assumptions; "the state" only "preserves itself"...this is false, because class is what drives history, not some abstract love of power. Third, the political structure of the PRC is very much not "what we have in the West", and any half-attentive observer will confirm as much regardless of personal ideology. To be specific, the CPC has the ability to dictate terms to the capitalist class in the PRC, not the other way around, and so we cannot ignore this potential for progress.

CPC, despite a rank-and-file memebership, just like the old ruling parties of the east-bloc is quickly becoming an integrated part of the chinese capitalist class.

And the part I bolded there, that is why you will stand with CPC when the next uprising comes against the CPC's pro-capitalist policies, just like you stood with Deng Xiaoping's CPC in '89. You fail to recognize how the counter-revolution came from above, visible in the subsequent policies, just as it is no coincidence that you'll find former party beureucrats in the East Bloc as leading capitalists. In the PSL document the CPC is recognized as a Bonapartist party, do you agree with this? Why then do you come to such defeatist conclusions in relation to struggle against the CPC?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

@Manic - you clearly didn't understand my point that the state serves to preserve a certain class power, this is in line with your supposed Marxist thinking: the Chinese state serves to preserve the country's capitalist interests, the rank and file don't have any more power than labour party members in Britain do. A state is the governing embodiment of a ruling class and China has a ruling class of capitalists, just like western countries, how can any form of government that upholds that class work in the interests of the labourers that feed the ruling class? By your logic, entryism can work for us and we might as well join labour or the democrats purely because they have a working class rank and file, it is a wholly elementary argument - this is in understanding that you are incorrect about China's socialism, which is actually not in existence.

Communists actually believe that the working class as a class conscious of its own objective conditions is the force that will bring about socialism - with that in mind, we want to see the working class organize itself in the workplaces, communities and directly challenge the ruling class. Would you tell the militant Chinese workers that are doing this now to shut up and go and tell the CPC instead? Or tell them to wait around until the CPC decides to reform the government along a more socialist platform? Your half-attentive notion that we shouldn't ignore the potential progress that the CPC could dictate to capitalists is ridiculous, the CPC is the ruling party of a capitalist state, it now at its leadership represents the embodiment of the capitalist ruling class - since when do communists side with capitalistic states and their ruling party and ruling class?

On attentiveness, I suggest you actually take a look at the socio-economic character of China, just a look at Shanghai will do you for this. There's only one force in the world that labels China as 'communist' and that is the west, due to the rivalry China presents them with in the coming years. Even to say China is a worker's state is incredibly foolish, but to say that any remnants of the old distorted form of socialism can be saved by the ruling class of a capitalist country is a complete bastardization of not only Marxist theory, but revolutionary communist theory as a whole. I'd say you're an apologist for Chinese capitalism, a blind entryist and nothing more than a reformist on the question of the Chinese state - you are not a revolutionary.

@Iseul - I wouldn't have ruled out the 'deep entryism' tactics of the Trots in Britain either, if they had actually worked. What communists forget is that there are socio-economic systems that determine the nature of government and the political conditions of a state, in the case of Britain we have parliamentary democracy, which has been designed to preserve the interests of capitalists since capitalism first came about - western democracy is the organs of the ruling class body. This is what these structures are designed for; to preserve the interests of the ruling class. To fight against capitalism is to fight against these structures in general, not try to work inside of them hoping that the working class can get some power some how. And look how it ended in Britain, some small gains for the working class but overall, the working class dealt with years of Blairism, a continuation of Thatcherite politics thus leaving entryism a waste of time and probably a factor that further fragmented the left if we consider the damage it did to certain organizations at the dawn of its failure.

[manic expression]

CPC, despite a rank-and-file memebership, just like the old ruling parties of the east-bloc is quickly becoming an integrated part of the chinese capitalist class.
How, exactly, would you justify that comparison?


And the part I bolded there, that is why you will stand with CPC when the next uprising comes against the CPC's pro-capitalist policies, just like you stood with Deng Xiaoping's CPC in '89. You fail to recognize how the counter-revolution came from above, visible in the subsequent policies, just as it is no coincidence that you'll find former party beureucrats in the East Bloc as leading capitalists. In the PSL document the CPC is recognized as a Bonapartist party, do you agree with this? Why then do you come to such defeatist conclusions in relation to struggle against the CPC?
1989 wasn't a working-class "uprising", it was a reactionary protest by students whose leaders admitted that they didn't want workers to have any significant role in their "movement". Protest leaders also admitted that they were trying to provoke the PRC into violent confrontation, an admission supported by the fact that the unarmed PLA soldiers first sent in were attacked and murdered by the "demonstrators".

But yeah, just your run-of-the-mill progressive demonstration. :rolleyes: At least CNN would say so.

Also, please provide the full context of that PSL text if you want me to comment on it.


@Manic - you clearly didn't understand my point that the state serves to preserve a certain class power, this is in line with your supposed Marxist thinking: the Chinese state serves to preserve the country's capitalist interests, the rank and file don't have any more power than labour party members in Britain do. A state is the governing embodiment of a ruling class and China has a ruling class of capitalists, just like western countries, how can any form of government that upholds that class work in the interests of the labourers that feed the ruling class? By your logic, entryism can work for us and we might as well join labour or the democrats purely because they have a working class rank and file, it is a wholly elementary argument - this is in understanding that you are incorrect about China's socialism, which is actually not in existence.
The Chinese state is the product of a working-class revolution and subsequent socialist construction. The CPC was instrumental in that, to say the least. To compare such a state to the UK is absolutely absurd and downright anti-historical, by economic and/or political rationales.

When you keep repeating, without any historical perspective, that the PRC is "capitalist capitalist capitalist", you are basically trying to convince yourself that Chinese history started in 1976. Obviously, this isn't the case, and the reactionary growth of capitalist elements in the PRC has been defined in contrast to the socialist elements that yet exist and provide a method for a progressive change in direction.


Communists actually believe that the working class as a class conscious of its own objective conditions is the force that will bring about socialism - with that in mind, we want to see the working class organize itself in the workplaces, communities and directly challenge the ruling class. Would you tell the militant Chinese workers that are doing this now to shut up and go and tell the CPC instead? Or tell them to wait around until the CPC decides to reform the government along a more socialist platform? Your half-attentive notion that we shouldn't ignore the potential progress that the CPC could dictate to capitalists is ridiculous, the CPC is the ruling party of a capitalist state, it now at its leadership represents the embodiment of the capitalist ruling class - since when do communists side with capitalistic states and their ruling party and ruling class?
If that were to happen, it would most likely happen with the involvement of rank-and-file CPC members. Actually, it would be essentially unavoidable.

Contrary to your thinking, the CPC isn't an inanimate object sitting in the middle of Beijing...it's composed of 78 million members, many of whom are politically advanced when it comes to class struggle. That is where we must look to when we call for the measures you pointed out...not for any arbitrary reason, but because any advances of the proletariat will include forces within the CPC.


On attentiveness, I suggest you actually take a look at the socio-economic character of China, just a look at Shanghai will do you for this. There's only one force in the world that labels China as 'communist' and that is the west, due to the rivalry China presents them with in the coming years. Even to say China is a worker's state is incredibly foolish, but to say that any remnants of the old distorted form of socialism can be saved by the ruling class of a capitalist country is a complete bastardization of not only Marxist theory, but revolutionary communist theory as a whole. I'd say you're an apologist for Chinese capitalism, a blind entryist and nothing more than a reformist on the question of the Chinese state - you are not a revolutionary.
OK, Shanghai. What about it?

Anyway, when you try to tell us that I'm looking to "the ruling class of a capitalist country", you're doing two things. First, you're ignoring what I've said constantly of the CPC rank-and-file. Second, you're side-stepping the fact that there is no capitalist class in control of the country. The CPC holds the power in this case, and just as easily as Deng increased capitalist production, the CPC can yet decrease it. Your wording here is important because we must distinguish between a country with a socialist foundation that has seen a great increase in capitalist relations and a capitalist country. Those are two very different things, and you're trying to toss them in the same pot.

[Crux]

How, exactly, would you justify that comparison?


1989 wasn't a working-class "uprising", it was a reactionary protest by students whose leaders admitted that they didn't want workers to have any significant role in their "movement".
So the early parts of the October revolution would be characteresized as pro-Tazarist demonstrations lead by a priest and yellow trade unions? Please.

The princelings, the opening up of the party for CEO's, the composition of the leadership, combined with the lack of democratic centralism.

[manic expression]

So the early parts of the October revolution would be characteresized as pro-Tazarist demonstrations lead by a priest and yellow trade unions? Please.

The princelings, the opening up of the party for CEO's, the composition of the leadership, combined with the lack of democratic centralism.
So according to you, 1917 Russia is the same as 1989 China...because in both cases, a communist party was open for CEO's and lacked democratic centralism. OK. Anything else you'd like to make up?

[Crux]

So according to you, 1917 Russia is the same as 1989 China...because in both cases, a communist party was open for CEO's and lacked democratic centralism. OK. Anything else you'd like to make up?
The same in the sense that both were essentially popular uprisings, yes. Unless you belong to the "outside agitators" school of thought, like you seem to.
Sorry, I meant 1905. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Gapon Clearly shows it was a plot by the Okhrana. Right?

[t.shonku]

China has economic zones worldwide. They are called "china towns".

Why the hell are you spreading such racism here?

Are you sick ?

[Chambered Word]

Well put.

Normally when I have something painfully obvious pointed out to me which I could have gleaned from actually reading the post I'm replying to, I don't try to somehow use it as a snappy retort, but whatever.


1989 wasn't a working-class "uprising", it was a reactionary protest by students whose leaders admitted that they didn't want workers to have any significant role in their "movement". Protest leaders also admitted that they were trying to provoke the PRC into violent confrontation, an admission supported by the fact that the unarmed PLA soldiers first sent in were attacked and murdered by the "demonstrators".


Because the attitudes of middle class student leaders reflect the entire movement. At least you're being consistent with your own top-down ideological world view.

[manic expression]

The same in the sense that both were essentially popular uprisings, yes. Unless you belong to the "outside agitators" school of thought, like you seem to.
As I've already explained, 1989 didn't see a popular uprising. You're making a nonsensical comparison because there's no consistency between the two examples other than some abstract idea of "uprising". But seeing as that's your position, then I await your expression of support for the "popular uprisings" led by Yeltsin and Walesa...and while we're at it, those Azerbaijani "uprisers" who threw Armenians from highrises during their "uprising".

[manic expression]

Because the attitudes of middle class student leaders reflect the entire movement. At least you're being consistent with your own top-down ideological world view.
So the attitudes of a movement's leadership don't mean anything when it comes to the movement itself? You just pretend the movement is what you want it to be?

[Crux]

As I've already explained, 1989 didn't see a popular uprising. You're making a nonsensical comparison because there's no consistency between the two examples other than some abstract idea of "uprising". But seeing as that's your position, then I await your expression of support for the "popular uprisings" led by Yeltsin and Walesa...and while we're at it, those Azerbaijani "uprisers" who threw Armenians from highrises during their "uprising".
Yes, if you had materialist view, you would see that the movemements in Poland and Russia too had elements of political revolution. Needless to say this was suffocated and destroyed by the likes of Walesa and Yeltsin. But no you have the "outside agitator" view a view you share with bourgeoisie. It's plainly obvious in your analysis of pretty much all movements, from Hungary and Czechoslavakia, to todays China and Iran.

[t.shonku]

Um, I dont live on the internet, I use the internet just like you do to check and post on this forum sometime. You're either a hypocrite, or you don't understand the principle of internet anonymity. Good for you, you are open about your PSL membership, I'm content to keep my political activities to myself that has nothing to do with the content of my post. I don't see it as relevant at all to whether or not SEZs are appropriate for two self-proclaimed socialist countries to set up.

Are you the enraged spirit of holier-than-thou lefties? Do you have any rational argument or is it limited to "I kool cuz I have party card"? Talk about chauvinism ... Are you a paid Chinese government spokesperson, or do you just have unquestioning loathing for anyone with anything critical to say about your favorite pet government?


I am myself no fan of ruthless state sponsored capitalism that China pursues.But it is true that China has got rid of feudal system.


Anyways since you are criticizing Chinese capitalism so much why don't you open a separate thread and bash China's neighbour India ?, a country which still has feudal sytem and opression that is lot more than in China, the country still has bonded labour system,child labour, devadasi system (a system where Dalit women are exploited for sex),and the corporates there are lot more oppressive than China.

[Crux]

You just pretend the movement is what you want it to be?
I see the complexities of popular struggle is beyond your grasp. Let's try this again, was the 1905 uprising an uprising of yellow trade unionists and okhrana agents? See that is a rhetorical question, of course it was not, and I assume you reckognize this. Then why are you unable to apply a materialist analysis on other events?

[manic expression]

Yes, if you had materialist view, you would see that the movemements in Poland and Russia too had elements of political revolution. Needless to say this was suffocated and destroyed by the likes of Walesa and Yeltsin. But no you have the "outside agitator" view a view you share with bourgeoisie. It's plainly obvious in your analysis of pretty much all movements, from Hungary and Czechoslavakia, to todays China and Iran.
Of course they had elements of so-called "political revolution"...it was the overthrow of socialism by the capitalist class. You refuse to recognize this plain fact (even in hindsight) and support your beloved "uprisings" even when they were clearly reactionary.

But again, since you're all about those "popular uprisings", let's hear your oh-so-progressive support for the 1990 Baku "uprising" that saw Armenians murdered in the streets.


I see the complexities of popular struggle is beyond your grasp. Let's try this again, was the 1905 uprising an uprising of yellow trade unionists and okhrana agents? See that is a rhetorical question, of course it was not, and I assume you reckognize this. Then why are you unable to apply a materialist analysis on other events?
The "complexities of popular struggle"...would that per chance include a willful ignorance of what a movement's leadership wants to accomplish? We should just ignore all that and pretend that movements are what we want them to be? Those kinds of "complexities"?

[Crux]

Of course they had elements of so-called "political revolution"...it was the overthrow of socialism by the capitalist class.
:rolleyes: I restate my point, when there is a genuine uprising against the capitalist regime in China, you will side with CPC, including what you deem it's "capitalist elements". Your "criticsm" of regimes you endorse, including Iran, is of no consequence.

[manic expression]

:rolleyes: I restate my point, when there is a genuine uprising against the capitalist regime in China, you will side with CPC, including what you deem it's "capitalist elements". Your "criticsm" of regimes you endorse, including Iran, is of no consequence.
For all your hot air about "complexities", you comprehend none. An uprising against capitalist production in the PRC (an uprising in which the CPC would inevitably have a part in)? That's one thing. An uprising against the CPC and the socialist construction of the PRC? That's quite another.

My criticisms of the PRC are of no consequence for hacks who only care about bashing socialism. And yes, go ahead and bring up Iran. It's what you do when you can't think of another distraction. :lol:

[Crux]

For all your hot air about "complexities", you comprehend none. An uprising against capitalist production in the PRC (an uprising in which the CPC would inevitably have a part in)? That's one thing. An uprising against the CPC and the socialist construction of the PRC? That's quite another.

My criticisms of the PRC are of no consequence for hacks who only care about bashing socialism. And yes, go ahead and bring up Iran. It's what you do when you can't think of another distraction. :lol:
Iran is a good example of how incosistent your "socialism" is. China is another.

Hah, even the PSL document dares to go further than that, in theory at least (accepting in theory the possibilty of a vanguard beyond the CPC), but quickly retreats from that position in it's conclusion.
So no uprising against the CPC is thinkable because the CPC would "inevitably" be part of any revolt in china? And any revolt they are not part of thus becomes counter-revolutionary. That's some nice sophistry you've got there.

[manic expression]

Iran is a good example of how incosistent your "socialism" is. China is another.
No, it's a good example of how you can't understand the simplest of arguments. I don't think Iran is socialist. Lying won't get you very far.


Hah, even the PSL document dares to go further than that, in theory at least (accepting in theory the possibilty of a vanguard beyond the CPC), but quickly retreats from that position in it's conclusion.
Provide the context of the document and I'll be able to address it. This is the second time I've made such a request.


So no uprising against the CPC is thinkable because the CPC would "inevitably" be part of any revolt in china? And any revolt they are not part of thus becomes counter-revolutionary. That's some nice sophistry you've got there.
:lol: That's not what I argued. Go back and try again.

[Crux]

No, it's a good example of how you can't understand the simplest of arguments. I don't think Iran is socialist. Lying won't get you very far.
Who's lying? Did I claim you've said Iran is socialist? But it just goes to show, even a PRC so eroded that even you couldn't call it socialist, if it was still in conflict with the U.S, you would still defend it, regardless. So it begs the question, is the economic foundations and the role of the CPC (or the DPRK and KWP) even important for you in deiciding to defend it politically?



Provide the context of the document and I'll be able to address it. This is the second time I've made such a request.
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/pages/for-the-defense-of-china.html


That's not what I argued. Go back and try again.


An uprising against capitalist production in the PRC (an uprising in which the CPC would inevitably have a part in)?
My bold. Really now? At least you are being consistently incosistent.

[manic expression]

Who's lying? Did I claim you've said Iran is socialist? But it just goes to show, even a PRC so eroded that even you couldn't call it socialist, if it was still in conflict with the U.S, you would still defend it, regardless.
Not necessarily, but nice try. Any other morsels of wisdom from your 8-Ball you'd like to share with us?


http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/pages/for-the-defense-of-china.html
Yeah, I agree with it. And?


My bold. Really now? At least you are being consistently incosistent.
Yes, the CPC would inevitably be involved in any move against capitalist production in the PRC. That's essentially an unavoidable fact. You're the one trying to convince yourself that capitalist relations and the CPC are indivisible now and forever when history tells us differently. Have fun ducking and dodging reality once more.

[Queercommie Girl]

As I said before, the basis is largely proletarian, and the CPC's position in the PRC allows it the power to roll back every single reactionary "reform" that's gone on the past few decades. Legally and practically, it can happen, and indeed it would be the most viable way it would happen. Whatever progress there is to be made in the PRC, it will come from within the CPC for exactly those reasons.


What you need is to actually go to China. You need to rely to real empirical data on the ground rather than abstract dogmatism. You obviously don't know how difficult it is to do any kind of activism within the CCP structure without ending up like Zhao Dongmin.

Unless you think the billionnaires in charge will somehow "magically" turn to socialism when they "morally awaken", it's just not an realistic option.

I'm not even going to comment whether or not your line is right or wrong in the abstract sense. Because it doesn't matter. It will never work in practice anyway.

[Crux]

Not necessarily, but nice try. Any other morsels of wisdom from your 8-Ball you'd like to share with us?


Yeah, I agree with it. And?


Yes, the CPC would inevitably be involved in any move against capitalist production in the PRC. That's essentially an unavoidable fact. You're the one trying to convince yourself that capitalist relations and the CPC are indivisible now and forever when history tells us differently. Have fun ducking and dodging reality once more.
So no uprising against the CPC is thinkable because the CPC would "inevitably" be part of any revolt in china? And any revolt they are not part of thus becomes counter-revolutionary. That's some nice sophistry you've got there.

I am not suprised you agree, but even that article, perhaps it's a miswrite, that a vanguard is theoretically possible outside the CPC. I suppose it's important to safe-guard yourself if history would end up smacking you in the face.

Ah not necessarily but most likely.
I take this as an example: "The U.S. is not satisfied to see any other country especially Russia be an economic or political power in the world," La Riva said. "Russia has a right to defend itself and a right to be concerned about encroachment by the United States in the former Soviet republics. To be a member of NATO is to be a part of the U.S. imperialist alliance and a threat to world peace." (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-06-20-usrussia-tensions-rise-with-m.html)

Is taking a critical viewpoint even of modern day russia too much to ask? Evidently it is.
My bold:
"South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia. In the most recent referendum, on Nov. 12, 2006, 98 percent of the voters reaffirmed their independence.
A similar situation exists in Abkhazia, located in northwestern Georgia. Since 1992, Russian troops have been in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a peacekeeping force, and as a measure against what it sees as a U.S. and Georgian encroachment."
From this it easy to draw a conclusion how you would relate to a post-CPC capitalist China if it was still in conflict with the U.S. And no this is not an endorsement of U.S influence in the region or the Georgian regime. This is merely a demonstration of your method of analysis.

[Queercommie Girl]

I take this as an example: "The U.S. is not satisfied to see any other country especially Russia be an economic or political power in the world," La Riva said. "Russia has a right to defend itself and a right to be concerned about encroachment by the United States in the former Soviet republics. To be a member of NATO is to be a part of the U.S. imperialist alliance and a threat to world peace." (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-06-20-usrussia-tensions-rise-with-m.html)

Is taking a critical viewpoint even of modern day russia too much to ask? Evidently it is.
My bold:
"South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia. In the most recent referendum, on Nov. 12, 2006, 98 percent of the voters reaffirmed their independence.
A similar situation exists in Abkhazia, located in northwestern Georgia. Since 1992, Russian troops have been in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a peacekeeping force, and as a measure against what it sees as a U.S. and Georgian encroachment."
From this it easy to draw a conclusion how you would relate to a post-CPC capitalist China if it was still in conflict with the U.S. And no this is not an endorsement of U.S influence in the region or the Georgian regime. This is merely a demonstration of your method of analysis.

I have to say though on international geopolitical issues (as opposed to domestic issues) I'm in-between the CWI and PSL. I wouldn't say I'm on the side of Russia against the US, but I think countries like Russia, China and India are certainly not on the same level as US imperialism. They are like the "lesser evil" of the international capitalist and imperialist world.

This doesn't mean I endorse socialists to support "lesser evilism", whether in international geopolitics or in domestic politics. After all, even today New Labour is still objectively speaking a "lesser evil" compared with the Conservatives. Certainly the cuts to public funding have been more severe since the Con-Dem coalition got into power, for instance. But this doesn't mean socialists should explicitly support New Labour. However, it is still important to point this out, IMO.

[manic expression]

What you need is to actually go to China. You need to rely to real empirical data on the ground rather than abstract dogmatism. You obviously don't know how difficult it is to do any kind of activism within the CCP structure without ending up like Zhao Dongmin.

Unless you think the billionnaires in charge will somehow "magically" turn to socialism when they "morally awaken", it's just not an realistic option.

I'm not even going to comment whether or not your line is right or wrong in the abstract sense. Because it doesn't matter. It will never work in practice anyway.
CPC cadre publicly protested the treatment of Zhao Dongmin. My point is that the CPC's 78 million members aren't all billionaire capitalists...you honestly don't think there's any potential for progress there?

[Crux]

What you need is to actually go to China. You need to rely to real empirical data on the ground rather than abstract dogmatism. You obviously don't know how difficult it is to do any kind of activism within the CCP structure without ending up like Zhao Dongmin.

Unless you think the billionnaires in charge will somehow "magically" turn to socialism when they "morally awaken", it's just not an realistic option.

I'm not even going to comment whether or not your line is right or wrong in the abstract sense. Because it doesn't matter. It will never work in practice anyway.
I suspect a PSL visit to china would be similar to PSL's visit to Iran. Remember to wipe the blood off your hands after you shake hands with the CPC tops.

[Crux]

I have to say though on international geopolitical issues (as opposed to domestic issues) I'm in-between the CWI and PSL. I wouldn't say I'm on the side of Russia against the US, but I think countries like Russia, China and India are certainly not on the same level as US imperialism. They are like the "lesser evil" of the international capitalist and imperialist world.

This doesn't mean I endorse socialists to support "lesser evilism", whether in international geopolitics or in domestic politics. After all, even today New Labour is still objectively speaking a "lesser evil" compared with the Conservatives. Certainly the cuts to public funding have been more severe since the Con-Dem coalition got into power, for instance. But this doesn't mean socialists should explicitly support New Labour. However, it is still important to point this out, IMO.
And just as in domestic politics it is important to have an independent and principled position, not to capitulate to either New Labour or Russian nationalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

CPC cadre publicly protested the treatment of Zhao Dongmin. My point is that the CPC's 78 million members aren't all billionaire capitalists...you honestly don't think there's any potential for progress there?

I agree that the numerical majority of the CCP membership even today is still relatively progressive. But that's not the point. The CCP has no internal intra-party democracy. Numbers don't mean much by themselves. The entire structure is tightly controlled from the top, often through brute force. Apart from some grassroots trade union activists getting arrested and a few frankly impotent "public protests" from old retired party cadres, there are very few real things that can be done within the CCP structure.

As Mao said, "political power comes from the barrel of a gun". When analysing the CCP, it is insufficient to just note what the numerical majority is like, because the numerical majority does not correspond with the centre of power. Political power in the CCP is controlled by a few people at the top, and this power largely serves capitalist interests.

[manic expression]

I am not suprised you agree, but even that article, perhaps it's a miswrite, that a vanguard is theoretically possible outside the CPC. I suppose it's important to safe-guard yourself if history would end up smacking you in the face.
It's accepting something as a possibility. Communists do that from time to time...maybe you should try it.


I take this as an example: "The U.S. is not satisfied to see any other country especially Russia be an economic or political power in the world," La Riva said. "Russia has a right to defend itself and a right to be concerned about encroachment by the United States in the former Soviet republics. To be a member of NATO is to be a part of the U.S. imperialist alliance and a threat to world peace." (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-06-20-usrussia-tensions-rise-with-m.html)

Is taking a critical viewpoint even of modern day russia too much to ask? Evidently it is.
:rolleyes: Well, so much for that perspective thing. That article is about US imperialist aggression...it's not focused on condemning Russian society. You obviously don't care about being accurate about such trifles, though.

Of course (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-11-13-fall-berlin-wall-aftermath-soci.html), the PSL also opposes (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-10-09-un-reports-massive-population.html) the crimes of capitalism (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-10-02-capitalism-has-destroyed-educati.html) in Russia (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-06-01-the-criminal-legacy-boris-yeltsi.html). But if you can't understand the importance of opposing US imperialism when you're propagating in the US, then you probably can't wrap your head around that.


My bold:
"South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia. In the most recent referendum, on Nov. 12, 2006, 98 percent of the voters reaffirmed their independence.
A similar situation exists in Abkhazia, located in northwestern Georgia. Since 1992, Russian troops have been in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a peacekeeping force, and as a measure against what it sees as a U.S. and Georgian encroachment."
From this it easy to draw a conclusion how you would relate to a post-CPC capitalist China if it was still in conflict with the U.S. And no this is not an endorsement of U.S influence in the region or the Georgian regime. This is merely a demonstration of your method of analysis.
Uh, yeah...US imperialist aggression against the workers of the world would be opposed. What a concept! :lol:

[RED DAVE]

For all your hot air about "complexities", you comprehend none.Let's see who comprehends what.


An uprising against capitalist production in the PRChnow since private capitalism is now about 70% of all industry in China, this would be an uprising against the entire economy and the party-run state that runs it.


(an uprising in which the CPC would inevitably have a part in)?So, a party that runs a capitalist state would rise up against the state it controls. Right.


That's one thing. An uprising against the CPC and the socialist construction of the PRC? That's quite another.What is "socialist construction"? Are you talking about industry? The majority of industry in China is now in private hands. The state-owned industry is bureaucratically controlled. So, there is no socialist construction.


My criticisms of the PRC are of no consequence for hacks who only care about bashing socialism.Since China is not socialism, what hacks are you talking about?

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

hnow since private capitalism is now about 70% of all industry in China, this would be an uprising against the entire economy and the party-run state that runs it.
By definition, the state isn't "running" private capitalism. But anyway, no, it wouldn't necessarily be so, it would be a struggle against capitalist production. Remember, just as easily as the CPC has allowed for the growth of capitalist production, it can disallow it and roll it back.


So, a party that runs a capitalist state would rise up against the state it controls. Right.
Most of the rank-and-file of the CPC don't "control" the state.


What is "socialist construction"? Are you talking about industry? The majority of industry in China is now in private hands. The state-owned industry is bureaucratically controlled. So, there is no socialist construction.
The political structure of the PRC is a direct result of the working-class Chinese Revolution. The vanguard party's central role distinguishes the PRC as having undergone socialist construction. The increase in capitalist elements in the PRC has occurred under the control of the CPC, and thus no capitalist class holds the reigns of state power as a class.


Since China is not socialism, what hacks are you talking about?
Complexities. :D

[Crux]

. But if you can't understand the importance of opposing US imperialism when you're propagating in the US, then you probably can't wrap your head around that.
Yes I understand that your "anti-imperialism" is essentially U.S-centric and intended solely for U.S auidence to show how "radical" you are. I am sure it scores you some points on U.S colleges. This must be why you offer so little in the way forward for the working class in your analysis, be they russian, chinese, korean or iranian.
For us we have to offer an analysis that is actually viable because we have comrades on the ground in China and in Russia. We have to apply our perspectives in practice.

[Chimurenga.]

Unless you think the billionnaires in charge will somehow "magically" turn to socialism when they "morally awaken", it's just not an realistic option.

I have literally taken the time and explained this to you before. How do you still not understand? We advocate political revolution within the CPC by the rank-and-file working class members. We don't think the capitalists that have joined the CPC will all of a sudden, abandon their class interest and move their private property to collective property. I don't even think anyone believes that to be a realistic possibility. If you still don't understand that, refer to Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm#ch11-3).

[manic expression]

Yes I understand that your "anti-imperialism" is essentially U.S-centric and intended solely for U.S auidence to show how "radical" you are. I am sure it scores you some points on U.S colleges. This must be why you offer so littlwe in the way forward for the working class in your analysis, be they russian, chinese, korean or iranian.
:lol: It's called opposing the imperialists of one's country first and foremost. It's kinda what communists have been doing since WWI. Any other basic communist principles you'd like to disparage?

[Crux]

I have literally taken the time and explained this to you before. How do you still not understand? We advocate political revolution within the CPC by the rank-and-file working class members. We don't think the capitalists that have joined the CPC will all of a sudden, abandon their class interest and move their private property to collective property. I don't even think anyone believes that to be a realistic possibility. If you still don't understand that, refer to Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm#ch11-3).
A marcyite referencing The Revolution Betrayed as if it would have any kind of bearing on your politics. I lol'ed.

[manic expression]

A marcyite referencing The Revolution Betrayed as if it would have any kind of bearing on your politics. I lol'ed.
You would "lol" when it comes to comprehending what Trotsky actually wrote, wouldn't you?

[Crux]

:lol: It's called opposing the imperialists of one's country first and foremost. It's kinda what communists have been doing since WWI. Any other basic communist principles you'd like to disparage?
:rolleyes: Yes, I clearly remember the revolutionary marxists in the german Socialdemocratic party being apologists for the Tzar, I mean after all that's what anti-imperialists do, right? No what you are doing would be akin to German Communsist espousing the same "patriotic" rhetoric as the CPUSA vis a vis the US government, supporting strike bans and internments of war resisters.
Opportunism in regards to another country is still opportunism.

[manic expression]

:rolleyes: Yes, I clearly remember the revolutionary marxists in the german Socialdemocratic party being apologists for the Tzar, I mean after all that's what anti-imperialists do, right? No what you are doing would be akin to German Communsist espousing the same "patriotic" rhetoric as the CPUSA vis a vis the US government, supporting strike bans and internments of war resisters.
Opportunism in regards to another country is still opportunism.
How many more cross-eyed comparisons are you going to pull out of your sectarian split? Russian communists denounced the justifications of war given by Russian imperialists and opposed those imperialists first and foremost. German communists did the same. Ring a bell? That's what you don't do.

[Crux]

You would "lol" when it comes to comprehending what Trotsky actually wrote, wouldn't you?
Oh this is rich. And yes I lol at your "comprehension" of what Trotsky actually wrote.
"With energetic pressure from the popular mass, and the disintegration inevitable in such circumstances of the government apparatus, the resistance of those in power may prove much weaker than now appears. But as to this only hypotheses are possible. In any case, the bureaucracy can be removed only by a revolutionary force. And, as always, there will be fewer victims the more bold and decisive is the attack. To prepare this and stand at the head of the masses in a favorable historic situation – that is the task of the Soviet section of the Fourth International. Today it is still weak and driven underground. But the illegal existence of a party is not nonexistence. It is only a difficult form of existence. Repressions can prove fully effective against a class that is disappearing from the scene this was fully proven by the revolutionary dictatorship of 1917 to 1923 – but violences against a revolutionary vanguard cannot save a caste which, if the Soviet Union is destined in general to further development, has outlived itself."

You position vis a vis the regimes in the USSR and China has always been, at best, of a weak reformist character rather than revolutionary.

[manic expression]

Oh this is rich. And yes I lol at your "comprehension" of what Trotsky actually wrote.
I comprehend that specific passage but I don't personally agree with it. Rich enough for you?


You position vis a vis the regimes in the USSR and China has always been, at best, of a weak reformist character rather than revolutionary.
Sure, go ahead and toss around more terms without knowing their meaning. To you, "revolutionary" means slandering socialism, and "reformist character" means defending socialism and the gains of the workers.

[Crux]

How many more cross-eyed comparisons are you going to pull out of your sectarian split? Russian communists denounced the justifications of war given by Russian imperialists and opposed those imperialists first and foremost. German communists did the same. Ring a bell? That's what you don't do.
Allow me to introduce to you, my american comrade, a startling new idea: Internationalism. They didn't oppose one imperialism "first and foremost", they opposed imperialism. See when I spoke about making apologies for foreign imperialists I wasn't speaking hypothetically. That is what you are doing in this very thread in regards to China. But I suppose it is an easy thing for you to do, seeing as you do not base yourself on international working class solidarity, just a phony "anti-imperialism" meant to be contrarian in a U.S context.

[Crux]

Sure, go ahead and toss around more terms without knowing their meaning. To you, "revolutionary" means slandering socialism, and "reformist character" means defending socialism and the gains of the workers.
:rolleyes: No, it means it is an absolut joke to claim that you have ever advocated political revolution in a degenerated or deformed worker's state.

[manic expression]

Allow me to introduce to you, my american comrade, a startling new idea: Internationalism. They didn't oppose one imperialism "first and foremost", they opposed imperialism. See when I spoke about making apologies for foreign imperialists I wasn't speaking hypothetically. That is what you are doing in this very thread in regards to China. But I suppose it is an easy thing for you to do, seeing as you do not base yourself on international working class solidarity, just a phony "anti-imperialism" meant to be contrarian in a U.S context.
Seems like we have to go back to school so you can learn the basics.

Opposing one's own ruling class first and foremost is precisely what communists do in such cases. It is not a violation of internationalism, and on the contrary it is the application of internationalism by weakening the imperialists of one's own country in order to aid the workers of other countries. As Lenin explained (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/sep/x01.htm):

The lessons of the war are compelling even our opponents to recognise in practice both the stand of “defeatism” and the necessity of issuing—at first as a spirited phrase in a manifesto, but later more seriously and thoughtfully—the slogan of “a revolt in the rear” of the German militarists, in other words, the slogan of a civil war. The lessons of the war, it appears, are knocking into their heads that which we have been insisting on since the very outset of the war.

That is the most immediate task of communists in times of imperialist aggression. Not to sit around and slander socialists in other countries, but to undermine imperialism where it's closest.

As for China...so good of you to finally say something vaguely on-topic. Too bad it's ridiculous, and that the absurdity of your claims have already been extensively explained already. If you want to revise the meaning of imperialism to fit your fantasies, go ahead, but don't expect it to be materialist or Marxist or useful to anyone.

[manic expression]

:rolleyes: No, it means it is an absolut joke to claim that you have ever advocated political revolution in a degenerated or deformed worker's state.
Making more things up, I see. A very important point of mine is looking to the CPC rank-and-file to take back control through a veritable political revolution. Just because I don't retroactively support everything the Fourth International did doesn't mean you can put words in my mouth regarding post-Deng China.

[Crux]

Seems like we have to go back to school so you can learn the basics.

Opposing one's own ruling class first and foremost is precisely what communists do in such cases. It is not a violation of internationalism, and on the contrary it is the application of internationalism by weakening the imperialists of one's own country in order to aid the workers of other countries. As Lenin explained (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/sep/x01.htm):

The lessons of the war are compelling even our opponents to recognise in practice both the stand of “defeatism” and the necessity of issuing—at first as a spirited phrase in a manifesto, but later more seriously and thoughtfully—the slogan of “a revolt in the rear” of the German militarists, in other words, the slogan of a civil war. The lessons of the war, it appears, are knocking into their heads that which we have been insisting on since the very outset of the war.

That is the most immediate task of communists in times of imperialist aggression. Not to sit around and slander socialists in other countries, but to undermine imperialism where it's closest.

As for China...so good of you to finally say something vaguely on-topic. Too bad it's ridiculous, and that the absurdity of your claims have already been extensively explained already. If you want to revise the meaning of imperialism to fit your fantasies, go ahead, but don't expect it to be materialist or Marxist or useful to anyone.
Well, as far as I remember Lenin advocated revolution in Germany as well, not that it would have to wait until the Tzar was defeated.

[El Oso Rojo]

Two puppets of the West are just as bad as Kim Jong-il and Hu Jintao? Might I ask just what fucking planet you live on?

Planet Armchair Stupidity.

[manic expression]

Well, as far as I remember Lenin advocated revolution in Germany as well, not that it would have to wait until the Tzar was defeated.
Yes, and as far as I know the PSL advocates for revolution in Germany as well...and Russia, too, for that matter. But that doesn't mean revolutionary defeatism goes out the window. The immediate task of all progressives remains the same.

[robbo203]

http://www.china-hiking.com/tibet/PSL.JPG

"The workingmen all have the Chinese nationality, and they are proud of it."
- Karl Marx, hidden pages Communist Manifesto


Unbelievable. Offering their support to the despicable anti-working class Chinese capitalist regime. Really, they should rename themselves the Party for Capitalism and Repression

[Crux]

Making more things up, I see. A very important point of mine is looking to the CPC rank-and-file to take back control through a veritable political revolution. Just because I don't retroactively support everything the Fourth International did doesn't mean you can put words in my mouth regarding post-Deng China.
Only it's plain to see it is an effectively empty position. Defence of China and CPC comes "first and foremost". What about china under Mao? Seeing as we are discussing political revolution in deformed worker's states.

[RED DAVE]

Lest we forget what this is all aoubt:


government-led, enterprise-based and market-oriented” economic zonesSure sounds like capitalism to me.

RED DAVE

[El Oso Rojo]

Yeah? Well I'm a member of the glorious vanguard of the proletariat that is fighting revolutionary war and is leading the massed ranks of the workers and peasants of the world to ever-greater victories in their struggles against revisionism, opportunism, and all forms of bourgeois decadence. I'm a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, in fact.

"I am the leader of the workers
And I'll tell you why the Left is suspect
Because there's something you don't understand
Only my line is correct
'Cause I am the vanguard of the masses
And all of you should just follow me
If you doubt my analysis
You must be in the petty bourgeoisie!"

Sing along, everyone!

I am the leader of my armchair
And I'll tell you why I am full of shit
Because i am against authoritarian fake communist that
why I am support the CIA and Imperialism
'Cause I am an ultra leftist idiot
And all of you should just follow me
I know better despite the fact
that what i say comes out of the shithouse

so, comrades come rally, the times has come, the international armchairs unite to diss the ones who actually making revolution.

we have no creds in the ghetto, our stink make the average joe piss their pants.

Come sing along anti Imperialist of revleft!!

[danyboy27]

I am the leader of my armchair
And I'll tell you why I am full of shit
Because i am against authoritarian fake communist that
why I am support the CIA and Imperialism
'Cause I am an ultra leftist idiot
And all of you should just follow me
I know better despite the fact
that what i say comes out of the shithouse

so, comrades come rally, the times has come, the international armchairs unite to diss the ones who actually making revolution.

we have no creds in the ghetto, our stink make the average joe piss their pants.

Come sing along anti Imperialist of revleft!!

http://www.canadacool.com/COOLFACTS/ALBERTA/ALBERTAPHOTOS/DinosaurDig.jpg

[manic expression]

Only it's plain to see it is an effectively empty position. Defence of China and CPC comes "first and foremost". What about china under Mao? Seeing as we are discussing political revolution in deformed worker's states.
Changing the subject more and more, of course. First, it's not an empty position, the example you brought up was the PSL denouncing imperialist belligerence in relation to Russia. The first example was a photo of the PSL denouncing the US campaign against China. So that seems to be coming first and foremost after all. Second, China "under Mao" isn't what I would call deformed (ill-advised, sure, but that's different).

[El Oso Rojo]

Well, like I said, when your party gets slandered for absolutely no reason like it has been here, emotions will run high.


Different vanguards do things differently. The KWP saw it best to make Kim Jong-Il leader, so they did so. I don't think that automatically disqualifies them from being a revolutionary vanguard. The so-called "personality cult" might seem whimsical for those outside of DPRK society, but considering what they're up against I'm not against anything to raise morale and outline good role models for working-class militants. On a certain level, what the DPRK does in their "personality cult" is no different from what most societies do (Statue of Liberty, tombs of the unknown soldier, etc.).

The media propaganda against the DPRK also obfuscates the fact that the KWP isn't the only party around. There's also a Social-Democratic party active in the country. I, too, would like to see some more openness, but we're looking at a country under siege and I think the measures they've taken are certainly reasonable.


The PRC never forced anyone to accept their involvement at the point of a gun (something you alluded to), so it's very different from what we see from imperialist countries. Granted, the PRC isn't doing what Cuba is doing around the world by sending doctors to impoverished areas oftentimes without any compensation...but it's definitely not the Gelbe Gefaehr that the media would have us believe. Just because it's not ideal doesn't mean it's imperialist.


Yes, definitely. It's a slippery slope at best. However, I trust the Korean workers to keep it under control. Plus, had the KWP wanted to privatize, they had ample opportunities to do so long ago.


Likewise. :thumbup1:

More than, the people seem to attack them on personal level too, like calling people middle class kids and generalizing, people in the PSL as middle class.

Here; some facts for you people calling members middle class, PSL members work two jobs including the coordinators of the branches. PSL members are made up of poor immigrant workers, single minority mothers in the ghetto, members who had live in homeless shelters, unemploy people looking for work and poor college students. we have all sort of other people in our party, but it mostly workering poor people who make up, our party and we are base in working class community. We are not lucky like the ISO people might be. Coordinators like i said, have to work two jobs to make a living and to fund the PSL.

Since, I told you that fact, stop running around here calling PSL members middle class tankie children, you hate it when people label you middle class when you are actually poor, so don't do it the people in the PSL.

[Crux]

Changing the subject more and more, of course. First, it's not an empty position, the example you brought up was the PSL denouncing imperialist belligerence in relation to Russia. The first example was a photo of the PSL denouncing the US campaign against China. So that seems to be coming first and foremost after all. Second, China "under Mao" isn't what I would call deformed (ill-advised, sure, but that's different).
Not at all it proves my point about your flawed understanding of political revolution, something which certainly ties in with present day china and why it is ridicolous to have PSL:ers reference The Revolution Betrayed as if it would inform your politics.

[manic expression]

Not at all it proves my point about your flawed understanding of political revolution, something which certainly ties in with present day china and why it is ridicolous to have PSL:ers reference The Revolution Betrayed as if it would inform your politics.
It informs my politics (even if I don't agree with all of it), and that of the PSL. But leave it to the uber-sectarians to deny something like that out of some moral purism. Like I said, that I don't retroactively endorse whatever the 4th International did has no bearing on this issue.

[Queercommie Girl]

I have literally taken the time and explained this to you before. How do you still not understand? We advocate political revolution within the CPC by the rank-and-file working class members. We don't think the capitalists that have joined the CPC will all of a sudden, abandon their class interest and move their private property to collective property. I don't even think anyone believes that to be a realistic possibility. If you still don't understand that, refer to Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm#ch11-3).

Then the rank-and-file would need to form their own political party outside the current CCP, like the Maoist Communist Party of China which largely consists of ex-CCP members. It's simply strategic necessity.

Do you really think there is a lot of scope to operate politically within the current CCP structure without ending up like Zhao Dongmin?

Also, China today needs more than just a political revolution, since the majority of the economy has already been privatised and is no longer in the state's hands. Some degree of social revolution is also required. China today is hardly a classic "Stalinist" state.

[Chambered Word]

So the attitudes of a movement's leadership don't mean anything when it comes to the movement itself? You just pretend the movement is what you want it to be?

Where have I said or even implied this? Oh right, I actually didn't. Looks like that's the obligatory strawman with your post.


:lol: It's called opposing the imperialists of one's country first and foremost. It's kinda what communists have been doing since WWI. Any other basic communist principles you'd like to disparage?

Opposing your own country's imperialism and supporting another country's capitalism are completely different.


CPC cadre publicly protested the treatment of Zhao Dongmin. My point is that the CPC's 78 million members aren't all billionaire capitalists...you honestly don't think there's any potential for progress there?

Not this old argument again. The Australian Labour Party used to be made of of a vast majority of working class people, a lot of them unionists. There's no arbitrary number of workers your party can have that will make it a worker's party. Once again, a completely immaterial analysis cobbled together as a fig leaf over your distortion of Marxism (somehow you're strangely incapable of supporting the liberation of the workers of every country in the cases of countries like China and the DPRK).

[Queercommie Girl]

I suspect a PSL visit to china would be similar to PSL's visit to Iran. Remember to wipe the blood off your hands after you shake hands with the CPC tops.

Just saying: I wouldn't put China into the same category as Iran. Granted, both countries are oppressive politically and economically. But politics and economics aren't everything, unless one subscribes to narrow economic reductionism. Cultural freedom is also an issue. Oppressive as China is today, it is at least still a secular country, not a theocratic one. There are no cultural limitations in China as long as one is not anti-government, whereas in Iran men aren't even allowed to wear necklaces. Culturally China and Iran are light-years apart.

China is oppressive, but it isn't fascist, nor is it the "worst state" in the world at the moment.