If you want to undermine China [Archive]

View Full Version : If you want to undermine China

Threetune

13th June 2011, 22:02

If you want to undermine China
and you choose Revleft as your site
Just post all your findings below, here
And we’ll sort out the truth from the shite

Given the growing anti-China campaign by imperialism and its liberal apologists, I thought it might be a useful service if Revleft hosted a thread giving space to that trend, and the opportunity to answer it. Or should it go in ‘Opposing Ideologies’?

Everything bad that can be said about China could be posted here no matter whether it’s true or not. Any mixture of truth, suspicion, ‘anti-authoritarian’ rumour, speculation, innuendo, vague allusion, gossip, slander, or western generated disinformation campaigning and general shit-stirring can get space. That will save everybody time duplicating arguments on different threads.

Just a thought

☭The Revolution☭

13th June 2011, 22:07

The chinese government is working with adolf hitler's zombie supervillan corpse to create a contraption that will violently turn the body of every grandmother, child, and cute puppy in the world into slime and bust into flames.

Discuss.

Spawn of Stalin

13th June 2011, 22:08

Nice idea but there are so many other topics which generate way more duplicate threads. Things like "Under Communism, would...............................?", and "What kind of a leftist am I?" Pointless making a thread just for anti-China posts imo. And no, anti-China attitudes should not be restricted to OI

Dunk

13th June 2011, 22:13

Everything bad that can be said about China could be posted here no matter whether it’s true or not.

I heard China's breeding an army of genetically modified Bengal tigers that shoot Dengist reform lasers at communists!

WE MUST UNITE AGAINST THIS MENACE

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th June 2011, 22:55

Blake's Baby

13th June 2011, 23:20

Do workers get wages?

As a socialist that's all you need to decide whether something is capitalist or not.

There's been three days of riots in Guangdong that the 'People's Army' is currently trying to suppress.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

13th June 2011, 23:31

this guy sucks.

Zealot

13th June 2011, 23:50

I lived in Macau for a while and when I crossed into the Mainland I did see a lot of homeless people, most of them were amputees who probably couldn't work, but I think it was more to do with the fact that the area was frequented by many tourists so they all flocked to that place. The Triads had a large influence on the economy in Macau and I'm guessing also in mainland China.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 23:52

The glorious party vanguards in China today are buying expensive villas in London and sending their kids to rich private schools in the UK:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...t_12684693.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-06/13/content_12684693.htm)

This is so very proletarian and socialist...:rolleyes:

Fopeos

14th June 2011, 00:12

China is just a State-Capitalist police state. They've been busy dismantling and defunding what precious and few social programs they had. The only thing Socialist about China are the little red stars on the uniforms of the soldiers and police.

Blake's Baby

14th June 2011, 00:25

Maybe it's the Proper Totally Awesome but Secret People's Army Liberation of Opressed Westerners from Decadent Imperialist Running Dogs (not rich businessmen buying up fashionable pads at all)?

Dr Mindbender

14th June 2011, 01:16

And no, anti-China attitudes should not be restricted to OI
If i had my way, anti-China attitudes would be a prerequisite for remaining out of OI.

Its been truthfully said that it is the closest thing we have to a present day, living fascist state.

Sasha

14th June 2011, 01:46

If i had my way, anti-China attitudes would be a prerequisite for remaining out of OI.

i assume you mean anti-current chinese regime but then my sentiments exactly...

Spawn of Stalin

14th June 2011, 01:47

If i had my way, anti-China attitudes would be a prerequisite for remaining out of OI.

Its been truthfully said that it is the closest thing we have to a present day, living fascist state.
I'm not so sure, lots of good PSL folks are at least sympathetic towards China. Really can't think of any reason why (in my opinion) they should be restricted

Sasha

14th June 2011, 01:54

oh, and also;

If you want to undermine China
and you choose Revleft as your site
Just post all your findings below, here
And we’ll sort out the truth from the shite

i never pictured you for one of the poetic types.....

then again, writing lousy poetry is about as stereotypical for self declared anti-imperialist glorious leaders as rigged elections and an torturous secret service so it really shouldnt surprise me that you would mirror yourself on that...

Pretty Flaco

14th June 2011, 02:05

The only thing Socialist about China are the little red stars on the uniforms of the soldiers and police.

Can't be a socialist without them ;)

thefinalmarch

14th June 2011, 02:37

The only thing Socialist about China are the little red stars on the uniforms of the soldiers and police.
Not even:

the four smaller stars that surround the big star symbolize the four social classes (the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie) of Chinese people mentioned in Mao's "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship".

The stars symbolise pure class collaborationism.

punisa

14th June 2011, 14:12

Are there any Marxist fractions within China or within the party itself? Is anybody there criticizing the road that China took?

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 14:15

Its been truthfully said that it is the closest thing we have to a present day, living fascist state.

As reactionary as the ruling bloc in China is, this is clearly an exaggeration. Firstly, China today is not a fascist or quasi-fascist state. "Fascism" means something precise, it shouldn't just be thrown around to label any state that is deemed "bad" in a moral sense.

Secondly, there are many states around the world today which are at least as bad as China, and indeed many are worse. E.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia (which I would argue is significantly worse), and many countries in Africa engaged in genocidal-level tribal warfare.

In fact, despite Western propaganda, I wouldn't even say Western states like the US is significantly "better" than China either. They are all, in the last analysis, capitalist states based on oppression.

manic expression

14th June 2011, 14:31

Well, this thread is certainly filled with some silly stuff. From calling the PRC fascist to calling for the restriction of anyone who isn't "anti-China" (hey kids, don't forget to check under your bed for Fu Manchu! :rolleyes:) to claiming that if anyone receives wages then it's capitalism (I suppose slaves in Roman society who worked on the side in order to save up to buy their freedom were living in "capitalism")...this is definitely a treasure trove of utter nonsense. It's very obvious that some here aren't even giving so much as a thought to all their brave condemnations.

danyboy27

14th June 2011, 14:42

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 17:40

Are there any Marxist fractions within China or within the party itself? Is anybody there criticizing the road that China took?

Among grassroots CCP members, (working class and some middle class CCP members) of course, see for instance the example of trade union leader Zhao Dongmin.

But without intra-party democracy, what can they do? They have no power. To have political independence they would have to form their own party, which would then to labelled as "illegal" by the regime.

Case in point: the Maoist Communist Party of China (or Chinese Communist Party (Maoist)) - MCPC or CCP (M) largely consists of ex-CCP members, but it is a completely illegal organisation in China (a country that is supposedly Maoist!). The only thing they can do are very limited underground political activities.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 18:07

If you want to undermine China
and you choose Revleft as your site
Just post all your findings below, here
And we’ll sort out the truth from the shite

Given the growing anti-China campaign by imperialism and its liberal apologists, I thought it might be a useful service if Revleft hosted a thread giving space to that trend, and the opportunity to answer it. Or should it go in ‘Opposing Ideologies’?

I know comrade, it reminds of the sick propaganda campaign launched by the Western Imperialists of Britain in the 1910's against the indepedent progressive German Empire (although there are valid criticisms of the German Empire, the fact remains that it was a bulwark against the designs of Western Imperialism). I think we can draw many paralels between this and China today, dont u think comrade?

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 18:08

I know comrade, it reminds of the sick propaganda campaign launched by the Western Imperialists of Britain in the 1910's against the indepedent progressive German Empire (although there are valid criticisms of the German Empire, the fact remains that it was a bulwark against the designs of Western Imperialism). I think we can draw many paralels between this and China today, dont u think comrade?

Just asking (not giving an opinion or anything): are you being serious or any are being sarcastic?

Mather

14th June 2011, 18:19

Just asking (not giving an opinion or anything): are you being serious or any are being sarcastic?

I think he was making a serious point and being sarcastic.

In the early 1900s Germany and Britian were the two leading capitalist powers, much like the USA and China today. So he was being sarcastic at Threetune expense by pointing out how stupid it is to become the cheerleader for one capitalist power (China) because you don't like the other (the USA).

Leftsolidarity

14th June 2011, 18:32

Its been truthfully said that it is the closest thing we have to a present day, living fascist state.

Are we really going to get into another stupid debate about fascism on a thread by Threetune? Can we please stop throwing the 'F' word around so much?

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 18:41

I think he was making a serious point and being sarcastic.

In the early 1900s Germany and Britian were the two leading capitalist powers, much like the USA and China today. So he was being sarcastic at Threetune expense by pointing out how stupid it is to become the cheerleader for one capitalist power (China) because you don't like the other (the USA).

There is however one important difference.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for German imperialism 100 years ago, but if we examine history in an amoral way, one has to recognise the sheer efficiency and competence of the German national bourgeois.

Call me a "self-racist" if you like, but as a Chinese person I have no "faith" in the competence and efficiency of the Chinese bourgeois. The Chinese ruling class today is largely a corrupt, degenerate, incompetent bunch of losers who are more like the corrupt bureaucratic capitalists in Russia and the comprador capitalists in Latin America than the self-confident and efficient national bourgeois of the German Empire 100 years ago.

Look at the quality of Chinese goods. Almost everything is "made in China" these days, but the quality of Chinese-made goods is generally quite low. Have you ever drived a China-made car, for instance? They are nothing like German or Japanese cars. There is also a lot of shit, like fake goods, poisoned milk powder (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal 2008 Chinese milk powder scandal) etc coming out of Chinese industry.

I am Chinese and I am quite "pessimistic" about the level of development of my country. I say we Chinese in general are closer in development to India, Latin America and Africa than we are to the Germans and the Japanese. Chinese industry is still under-developed.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 18:54

well yeah china and german empire have differences, because they are different places and at differrent times lol.

The relevant parallels are there

i dont agree that China's leaders are incompetent or similar in behavior to a small african states leader who is forced to obey orders from the US. China has showed a few times that it is prepared (and able) to challenge the US if its own interests are at stake e.g. the currency manipulation thing

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 18:57

Chinese industry is so rubbish and incompetent that it can't even make a damn washing machine properly. My family has a China-made washing machine (actual Chinese brand) which had quite a few problems.

The German Empire 100 years ago was ruled by the relatively productive layers of the bourgeois, it was the bourgeois on its rise. China today is ruled by the semi-lumpen-bourgeois, it's the bourgeois on its fall. It's not the same at all.

Threetune

14th June 2011, 18:58

I'll post some stuff here, threetune, and you can reply 'true' or 'false'.

China is, by and large, Capitalist in its economic system.
Many poor people in China have to pay for healthcare.
There is gross poverty and inequality in China, currently.

As a Socialist, that's all you need to know to make a decision as to whether that place is 'Socialist' or not.

The workers state in China uses capitalism to stimulate production and all round technical development which wasn’t possible from a rural present base. The state still retains major control of stock in market floated companies, as well as control of banks and lending etc.

The state has recently embarked on a massive program of healthcare reform to catch up with the new problems thrown up by the rapid growth of the economy and needs of a more affluent population.

There is poverty and inequality as you might expect in a society still in the early stages of rapid transition from feudalism through a market economy towards communism.

A socialist can never know enough about anything, but you appear not to understand that.

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 18:58

i dont agree that China's leaders are incompetent or similar in behavior to a small african states leader who is forced to obey orders from the US. China has showed a few times that it is prepared (and able) to challenge the US if its own interests are at stake e.g. the currency manipulation thing

Of course China is not like some small African nation that's barely able to feed itself. Look at how fucking huge China is. Even with inferior military technology, the Chinese army could literally beat most armies in the world by its sheer numbers alone.

However, the quality of Chinese national industry is still shit though.

In China, there is only quantity but no quality. The only real reason China is powerful is because it's really really big. (both in size and in population)

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 19:12

and america makes shit cars, whats ur point lol?

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 19:14

and america makes shit cars, whats ur point lol?

I thought you were comparing China to the German Empire 100 years ago?

100 years ago the British Empire was in decline, and the German Empire was on the rise.

Today both the US and Chinese capitalists are in decline, both American and Chinese industry are quite shit. LOL

Financial capitalism is no substitute for the real stuff - Industrial Capitalism.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 19:23

how is china in decline :confused:

poor quality products (if thats even true) arent really an indicator of a countries strength on the world stage.

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 19:43

how is china in decline :confused:

There is really only one thing sustaining China's rapid economic growth at the moment - its massive amount of cheap labour.

This will not last forever, and I can't see Chinese capitalism raising itself up qualitatively anytime soon. It's too dependent on degenerate Western (Anglo-American) financial capitalism.

poor quality products (if thats even true) arent really an indicator of a countries strength on the world stage.
You can't be serious, man. Obviously industrial quality is a significant indicator of the level of economic development.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 19:56

China produces cheap goods, hence why u could say they are bad quality. It isnt a result of the backwardness of Chinese industrial capacity, they have some high tech industries that produce good quality products. Chinese industry is increasingly moving towards more high tech stuff

Its an old article, but IMO still relevent

Government policies now favor high-tech economic zones, research and development centers and companies that promise higher salaries and more skills. A computer chip plant being built by Intel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/intel_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in the northern city of Dalian is welcomed; a textile mill churning out $1 pairs of socks is not.
“When a country is in its early stages of development, as China was 20 years ago, having an export processing center is good for growth,” said Andy Rothman, a longtime China analyst at CLSA, the investment bank. “But there’s a point when that’s no longer appropriate. Now, China’s saying, ‘We don’t want to be the world’s sweatshop for junk any more.’ ”
Chinese firms are expanding into (or buying companies that work in) software and biotechnology, automobiles, medical devices and supercomputers. This year, a government-backed corporation even introduced its first commercial passenger jet, a move Beijing hopes will allow it to some day compete with Boeing (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/boeing_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Airbus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/airbus_sas/index.html?inline=nyt-org). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/business/worldbusiness/01factory.html

However, China’s future export growth is likely to come not from existing industries but from higher-value products, such as computer chips and cars. Japan’s exports also moved swiftly up the value chain, but whereas this was not enough to support durable gains in its market share, China has the advantage of capital controls that will prevent its exchange rate rising as abruptly as Japan’s did in the 1980s. When China does eventually allow the yuan to rise, it will do so gradually.
http://www.economist.com/node/15235078?Story_ID=E1_TVNPVDSR&CFID=172196560&CFTOKEN=68149178

Threetune

14th June 2011, 21:22

Defending the chinese authoritarian capitalist system should be a prerequisite for restriction.

The only reason why the U.S is ''fighting'' against china is the same reason why Microsoft is fighting Apple.

2 big capitalists powers fighting eachother.

That is not what the capitalists say:

"In a May 2009, Derrick Scissors of the very capitalist Heritage Foundation lays the issue to rest in an article called “Liberalization in Reverse.” He says:

"Examining what companies are truly private is important because privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes. In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors. Nearly two-thirds of the state-owned enterprises and subsidiaries in China have undertaken such changes, leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

"The sale of stock does nothing by itself to alter state control: dozens of enterprises are no less state controlled simply because they are listed on foreign stock exchanges. As a practical matter, three-quarters of the roughly 1,500 companies listed as domestic stocks are still state owned."

In short, you are wrong.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 21:42

in short, socialism with private shareholders lol

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

14th June 2011, 21:57

There is however one important difference.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for German imperialism 100 years ago, but if we examine history in an amoral way, one has to recognise the sheer efficiency and competence of the German national bourgeois.

Call me a "self-racist" if you like, but as a Chinese person I have no "faith" in the competence and efficiency of the Chinese bourgeois. The Chinese ruling class today is largely a corrupt, degenerate, incompetent bunch of losers who are more like the corrupt bureaucratic capitalists in Russia and the comprador capitalists in Latin America than the self-confident and efficient national bourgeois of the German Empire 100 years ago.

Corrupt I can understand. The capitalist price system encourages corruption due to its competitive nature, but I've not seen any indication that the Chinese ruling class are especially corrupt relative to most other ruling classes.

"Degenerate" sounds more like a moral than a political or economic criticism. I'm curious as to exactly what you mean here.

"Incompetent"? That I cannot agree with. How about this for incompetent - widespread promotion and political support for religious creationism. That's fucking incompetence. I bet some of the Chinese ruling class are laughing their arses off at the idea that one would willingly cripple the effectiveness of their workforce by giving an "education" based on bronze age superstition.

Look at the quality of Chinese goods. Almost everything is "made in China" these days, but the quality of Chinese-made goods is generally quite low. Have you ever drived a China-made car, for instance? They are nothing like German or Japanese cars. There is also a lot of shit, like fake goods, poisoned milk powder (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal 2008 Chinese milk powder scandal) etc coming out of Chinese industry.

I'm surprised that you have so easily bought into the notion that China makes nothing but crap. It's an exaggeration, to say the least.

Yes, there are incidents like the ones you mentioned, but for a country like China that relies on exports there is a direct material interest in improving practices, and they have both the confidence and the ability to do so.

(Fake goods are a different matter because that's related to satisfying demand that legitimate supply, for various reasons, cannot meet, so fakes and imitations spring up to meet the excess that is not satisfied with or unable to procure the real deal)

Threetune

14th June 2011, 21:58

in short, socialism with private shareholders lol

Derrick Scissors of the very capitalist Heritage Foundation says:
"..., leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

“But this reclassification is incorrect."!!!

We have to be thankful that you ‘lefts’ don’t agree that capitalism in China is under the control of a workers state, otherwise you might be confused with us communists."

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 22:06

Corrupt I can understand. The capitalist price system encourages corruption due to its competitive nature, but I've not seen any indication that the Chinese ruling class are especially corrupt relative to most other ruling classes.

"Degenerate" sounds more like a moral than a political or economic criticism. I'm curious as to exactly what you mean here.

"Incompetent"? That I cannot agree with. How about this for incompetent - widespread promotion and political support for religious creationism. That's fucking incompetence. I bet some of the Chinese ruling class are laughing their arses off at the idea that one would willingly cripple the effectiveness of their workforce by giving an "education" based on bronze age superstition.

You really like literalist nit-picking, don't you? LOL.

It's true that I'm not a moral nihilist by any means, however, the main idea that I'm trying to bring across here is that the majority of the bureaucratic capitalist ruling class in contemporary China have enriched themselves through the privatisation of state assets, not through any real technological innovation. And yes, China is also ranked as one of the most corrupt and most unequal nations in the world. There are serious international statistics for this.

I'm surprised that you have so easily bought into the notion that China makes nothing but crap. It's an exaggeration, to say the least.
I'm Chinese but I have no faith in China's industrial capability. I'm a "self-racist". Come at me, bro. :cool:

Ok, maybe I've exaggerated somewhat. There are a few good industries in China, like some military industries and the space industry. But it has to be said the majority of civil industries, especially light industries, aren't really of a good standard. The number of below-standard goods (like the poisoned milk powder I mentioned) in China is proportionally greater than most countries in the world. (This is also an objective fact) Neo-liberal capitalism in China has led to massive "corner-cutting" (partly in the literal sense!) in the Chinese construction industry as well.

At any rate China today cannot be compared to Germany 100 years ago. In Germany back then there was a very developed worker's movement. The German Social Democratic Party was very powerful politically (even though in 1914 it became social imperialist and supported its own country in WWI). This reflects the high level of industrial development and the development of the industrial working class in Germany at the time. There is nothing comparable in China today. In China today even reformist Maoists (the equivalent of the German SDP 100 years ago in a sense) get thrown into jail for "causing social disorder".

I mean seriously, when even reformist Maoists who are extremely loyal to the People's Republic are mercilessly thrown into jail, you know it really is fucked up...

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 22:23

Derrick Scissors of the very capitalist Heritage Foundation says:
"..., leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

“But this reclassification is incorrect."!!!

We have to be thankful that you ‘lefts’ don’t agree that capitalism in China is under the control of a workers state, otherwise you might be confused with us communists."

lol bruv are u fucking dumb

your own article says:
"In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors."

So yeah, "socialism" with private shareholders. Are private shareholders capitalist?

Im glad im not confused with nutcases like you, call yourself what u want

danyboy27

14th June 2011, 23:23

Threetune

14th June 2011, 23:28

lol bruv are u fucking dumb

your own article says:
"In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors."

So yeah, "socialism" with private shareholders. Are private shareholders capitalist?

Im glad im not confused with nutcases like you, call yourself what u want

Oh I see, you have a problem with workers states using “private investors” money to raise the economic and technical level of the society under the dictatorship of the proletariat do you? Well if you don’t like being proved wrong by capitalist commentators that say:

”… privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes.”

And ,

“…leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

Look at what communists say on the subject.

“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). Lenin.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. Marx

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 23:32

are you serious??

Yes, it's a worker's state where even reformist Maoists, people who are extremely loyal politically to the People's Republic, get thrown into jail without trial. Why? Only because they engaged in some trade unionist work to protect the basic rights of Chinese workers.

Yes, it really is a model worker's state. :rolleyes:

danyboy27

14th June 2011, 23:38

That is not what the capitalists say:

"In a May 2009, Derrick Scissors of the very capitalist Heritage Foundation lays the issue to rest in an article called “Liberalization in Reverse.” He says:

"Examining what companies are truly private is important because privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes. In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors. Nearly two-thirds of the state-owned enterprises and subsidiaries in China have undertaken such changes, leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

"The sale of stock does nothing by itself to alter state control: dozens of enterprises are no less state controlled simply because they are listed on foreign stock exchanges. As a practical matter, three-quarters of the roughly 1,500 companies listed as domestic stocks are still state owned."
In short, you are wrong.
The heritage fundation definition of capitalism is reaganomics, China definiton of capitalism is a mix of state intervention and almighty industries owner.

In china, if you are a chinese buisnessman, and you want to make a fuckton of money on the back of the worker, you can! all you have to do is to abide by the rule of the state, wich mean pay your dues, and respect the chinese governement arbitrary decision in what your produce from time to time.

and that not socialism, not even by a long shot, socialism would at least implies that buisnesses are properly taxed and money to be used to give services to the population.

A lot of chinese dosnt have access to cheap healthcare, a lot of chinese dosnt have pensions, a lot of chineses dosnt even have access to free education, a lot of chinese cant join a union.

Worker state my fucking ass.

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 23:40

Look at what communists say on the subject.

“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). Lenin.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. Marx

Lenin was talking about the use of bourgeois science and technology in the socialist planned economy, which obviously is important. He never mentioned anything about "share-holders".

Why weren't there any "share-holders" in Mao's day? Is China today even more "socialist" than Mao's China in your opinion?

Stop taking Lenin out of context.

Threetune

14th June 2011, 23:40

are you serious??

Yes, I was replying El Granma. You have let someone else reply for you. You blokes are always piggybacking of each other, can’t you answer for yourselves and have a sensible discussion. It’s easy, just reply to my reply then I can do the same and so on.

danyboy27

14th June 2011, 23:47

”… privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes.”

why would you purchase a share in the company? profits, interest.
to gain capital. Its basicly exploitation of the workers.

“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). Lenin.

and this complete totalitarian affirmation of Lenin is based on nothing at all.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. Marx
yea, this is a Beware of the trouble ahead from Marx. Nothing new here.

bailey_187

14th June 2011, 23:47

Oh I see, you have a problem with workers states using “private investors” money to raise the economic and technical level of the society under the dictatorship of the proletariat do you? Well if you don’t like being proved wrong by capitalist commentators that say:

”… privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes.”

And ,

“…leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect."

Look at what communists say on the subject.

“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). Lenin.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. Marx

I think you miss the point.

Someone who owns shares in a company receives a % of its profit, correct?

Althouhg state directed and controlled, China sells some shares in some industry to private investors, correct?

So therefore some private shareholders are receiving part of the surplus value that is created by these industries, correct?

So therefore some private investors are profiting from the other peoples labour power, correct?

Do u see any sort of problem with this?

danyboy27

14th June 2011, 23:49

Yes, I was replying El Granma. You have let someone else reply for you. You blokes are always piggybacking of each other, can’t you answer for yourselves and have a sensible discussion. It’s easy, just reply to my reply then I can do the same and so on.

this is revleft man, get used to it, happen to me every time.

Leftsolidarity

15th June 2011, 00:08

Yes, I was replying El Granma. You have let someone else reply for you. You blokes are always piggybacking of each other, can’t you answer for yourselves and have a sensible discussion. It’s easy, just reply to my reply then I can do the same and so on.

If you want a private discussion than do a private message but this is a page for everyone to discuss.

Sasha

15th June 2011, 00:12

China is an capitalist dream come true.
You see, capitalists secretly really don't want free markets, they want an monopoly. And in china that monopoly, plus perks like unlimmited cheap labor without protection or representation, are enforced by the state and its even an stable yet undemocratic state on top of that.
The Chinese burocrats are, like for example the Iranian revolutionary guard, everything US capitalists can only dream of, the seamless merger of corporation and state.

Dr Mindbender

15th June 2011, 00:17

As reactionary as the ruling bloc in China is, this is clearly an exaggeration. Firstly, China today is not a fascist or quasi-fascist state. "Fascism" means something precise, it shouldn't just be thrown around to label any state that is deemed "bad" in a moral sense.

Secondly, there are many states around the world today which are at least as bad as China, and indeed many are worse. E.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia (which I would argue is significantly worse), and many countries in Africa engaged in genocidal-level tribal warfare.

In fact, despite Western propaganda, I wouldn't even say Western states like the US is significantly "better" than China either. They are all, in the last analysis, capitalist states based on oppression.

Big brother state- check.

Wants of big business trumps all- check.

heavy emphasis on nationalism and militarism- check

heavy handed border control- check.

Clampdown on freedom of association and belief systems- check

Fuck all rights for workers- check.

Essentially the chinese state comprises all the worst elements of capitalism, and removes all of the tokenistic 'freedoms' of living under liberalism. Then slaps a red flag on it.

If I had to pin it to any other country historically, I'd say Mussolini's Italy.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th June 2011, 01:38

The workers state in China uses capitalism to stimulate production and all round technical development which wasn’t possible from a rural present base. The state still retains major control of stock in market floated companies, as well as control of banks and lending etc.

The state has recently embarked on a massive program of healthcare reform to catch up with the new problems thrown up by the rapid growth of the economy and needs of a more affluent population.

There is poverty and inequality as you might expect in a society still in the early stages of rapid transition from feudalism through a market economy towards communism.

A socialist can never know enough about anything, but you appear not to understand that.

So, to summarise:

It's State Capitalist
Inequality and Poverty have vastly increased in the past 30 years, for little reason other than a return to Capitalism
The poor still have to pay for a large part of their healthcare

Anything i've missed? I am not trying to be an arse, but I don't see why you, or any other Socialist, would defend this pariah state.

It is nothing but the rape and pillaging of the red flag and name of Socialism.

ModelHomeInvasion

15th June 2011, 01:59

Here's what a friend of mine had to say about the Chinese government a short while back:

"The Chinese government is hard to gauge actually. If you look at their focus, the emphasis is on rapid development and infrastructure. The censorship stuff tends to be against anti-government propaganda and things that are seen as signs of moral decay like pornography. The so-called "human rights violations" are a tossup because the country that tortures civilians with no oversight or process (not to mention the new Jim Crow that is the American "justice" system) also says Cuba is a violator of human rights.

At any rate, I'm completely for the industrialization and modernization of China.

What I'm not a fan of is "human rights" activists, especially not ones that are at least tacitly supported by the US/State Dept. Hard to be for "human rights" while you're cozying up with the greatest killing machine in all of human history. Also hard to claim you don't have a political agenda."

I agree.

Impulse97

15th June 2011, 03:01

The workers state in China uses capitalism to stimulate production and all round technical development which wasn’t possible from a rural present base.

Revisionist BS. It's a supposedly Socialist state, it has no reason whatsoever to use capitalism.

Maoism is revisionist in and of itself. With the seeds of Capitalism planted, it's 60+ years in power and Mao's death has only sped up the rot. You can see this in Vietnam too.

The state still retains major control of stock in market floated companies, as well as control of banks and lending etc.

The state has recently embarked on a massive program of healthcare reform to catch up with the new problems thrown up by the rapid growth of the economy and needs of a more affluent population.

State control don't mean shit unless it's a state of and for the workers. China is not a state of and for the workers in any way shape or form.

There is poverty and inequality as you might expect in a society still in the early stages of rapid transition from feudalism through a market economy towards communism.

Early on? It's been 60+ plus years! They've had plenty of time to get to socialism, especiallly if they where moving as rapidly as you suggest. Russia did most of it quite fast before and during the very early days of Stalin. A time span much, much shorter than what China has had.

A socialist can never know enough about anything, but you appear not to understand that.

Red Herring Alert.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 03:14

Lenin was talking about the use of bourgeois in the socialist planned economy, which obviously is important. He never mentioned anything about "share-holders".

Why weren't there any "share-holders" in Mao's day? Is China today even more "socialist" than Mao's China in your opinion?

Stop taking Lenin out of context.

China is a workers state taking its lead from Lenin who didn’t simply talk about "the use of bourgeois in the socialist planned economy," as you falsely say.

“Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing out enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy” (Vol 33, page-64)

“You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundred per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating along side you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and some times even cruel training, because we have no other way out.” (Vol 33, page 72) He further said, “We communists shall be able to direct our economy if we succeed in utilising the hands of the bourgeoisie in building up the economy of ours and in the meantime learn from the bourgeoisie and guide them along the road we want them to travel.” Lenin

These passages, with references!!! shows clearly how it is you who attempts to distort Leninism. You must be desperate.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 03:53

Worker state my fucking ass.

“No matter their shareholding structure, all national corporations in the sectors that make up the core of the Chinese economy are required by law to be owned or controlled by the state. These sectors include power generation and distribution; oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas; telecommunications; armaments; Aviation and shipping; machinery and automobile production; information technologies; construction; and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals. The railroads, grain distribution, and insurance are also dominated by the state, even if no official edict says so”.

"...the state exercises control over most of the rest of the economy through the financial system, especially the banks. By the end of 2008, outstanding loans amounted to almost $5 trillion, and annual loan growth was almost 19 percent and accelerating; lending, in other words, is probably China’s principal economic force. The Chinese state owns all the large financial institutions, the People’s Bank of China assigns them loan quotas every year, and lending is directed according to the state’s priorities. Derrick Scissors of the very capitalist Heritage Foundation May 2009,

Impulse97

15th June 2011, 05:17

Leftsolidarity

15th June 2011, 05:27

I see a tendency war in the near future....:(

Impulse97

15th June 2011, 05:56

I see a tendency war in the near future....:(

Yea, that's probably my cue to gracefully bow out of this discussion...

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 07:11

China is a workers state taking its lead from Lenin who didn’t simply talk about "the use of bourgeois in the socialist planned economy," as you falsely say.

“Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing out enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy” (Vol 33, page-64)

“You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundred per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating along side you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and some times even cruel training, because we have no other way out.” (Vol 33, page 72) He further said, “We communists shall be able to direct our economy if we succeed in utilising the hands of the bourgeoisie in building up the economy of ours and in the meantime learn from the bourgeoisie and guide them along the road we want them to travel.” Lenin

These passages, with references!!! shows clearly how it is you who attempts to distort Leninism. You must be desperate.

You are an idiot who is ignoring quantity in favour of quality solely. China's current privatisation schemes are far beyond anything that ever occurred during the Leninist NEP.

All your Lenin quotes mean nothing if you are too dumb to realise the fundamental difference between privatising a very small part of the economy and privatising the majority of it. The latter cannot be said to be socialist, no matter what tendency you follow.

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 07:12

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 07:20

Threetune, what Lenin did was a mistake. Plus, he did it in the very early days of the revolution, before Socialism had been fully achieved. Those policies by and large where reversed and the construction of Socialism began. The decline into Capitalism didn't begin until later, under the aging Stalin and the revisionist Khrushchev. Mao and Co. on the other hand established a state imbued with capitalistic potential. China never fully left capitalism and now the revisionists have stripped all, but the very last insignificant vestiges of Socialism off in favor of the all mighty yuan.

Maoism = Revisionism bound to lead to the collapse of socialism and the counter revolution.

Get over it.

Your obviously mistaken anti-Maoism aside, the policies in China today have nothing to do with NEP. That's an insult to Lenin. There is a fundamental difference between privatising a small amount of the economy and privatising the majority of it, and the latter cannot be considered "socialist" by any tendency.

Leftsolidarity

15th June 2011, 07:21

Threetune has a habit of annoying the fuck out of people and spitting out random quotes or out-of-context facts. Don't let it get to you.

Os Cangaceiros

15th June 2011, 07:27

China is a workers state

:closedeyes:

manic expression

15th June 2011, 11:09

Big brother state- check.

Wants of big business trumps all- check.

heavy emphasis on nationalism and militarism- check

heavy handed border control- check.

Clampdown on freedom of association and belief systems- check

Fuck all rights for workers- check.

Essentially the chinese state comprises all the worst elements of capitalism, and removes all of the tokenistic 'freedoms' of living under liberalism. Then slaps a red flag on it.

If I had to pin it to any other country historically, I'd say Mussolini's Italy.
Buying into imperialist propaganda that hasn't a leg to stand on - check

Ignoring the fact that no capitalist class holds state power in the PRC - check

Godwin's Rule - check

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 11:29

heavy emphasis on nationalism and militarism- check

heavy handed border control- check.

China's military budget is proportionally speaking far less than that of America's or even Russia's. And although there is national chauvinism, there is no extreme racism-based nationalism like in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

Also, China is a very poor country still. Most people want to get out of China, few people want to get in. So what "border control" are you talking about?

Clampdown on freedom of association and belief systems- check

There is far more religious and cultural freedom in China than in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia. In China, you can believe in anything you like as long as you are not anti-government. Even the religious cult Falun Gong was completely left alone until it began to target the government. Whereas in reactionary theocratic countries of the Middle East, any religion that is different from the "orthodox" interpretation of Islam is cracked down, no matter how pro-regime you may be politically. Oppressive as China today may be, it is still a secular country.

Similarly, LGBT people are also tolerated in China, as long as they are not anti-government. The same cannot be said about any theocratic countries.

Essentially the chinese state comprises all the worst elements of capitalism, and removes all of the tokenistic 'freedoms' of living under liberalism. Then slaps a red flag on it.

China today is a state-capitalist state ruled by the bureaucratic capitalist class without a democratic political superstructure. That doesn't make it fascist.

If I had to pin it to any other country historically, I'd say Mussolini's Italy.

Like I said before, the level of militarism, nationalism and racism don't match those of Mussolini's Italy. Italy was also a developed country, China today is still a developing country. And frankly even Mussolini's Italy was only semi-fascist, not completely fascist like Nazi Germany is.

Essentially I don't think China today is worse than say India. India has superficial political democracy, but empirically it's not applied well at all on the ground. India also has other problems like the caste system which China doesn't have.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 12:41

Blake's Baby

15th June 2011, 12:51

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 12:56

Having demonstrated, by use of hostile contemporary capitalist sources, that the Chinese state isn’t “privatising” everything as the anti-China ‘lefts’ like to claim, and that the policy of using “market economics” (capitalism) to build up technical and cultural levels under workers states control, is in fact a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist policy (NEP) born of necessity, the anti-China arguments turnout to be nothing but hot air. All they are left with is an opportunist appeal to infantile “anti-authoritarian” sentiment which Leninism exposed as bourgeois reaction long ago.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the NEP in principle, but what China is doing today is definitely not NEP. Like I said, you ignore quantity solely in favour of quality. Lenin may believe that in some circumstances it may be necessary to apply market economics to a minority of the economy, and this belief may indeed be justified in some cases, but in China today market economics has almost completely taken over.

It's definitely not the NEP. This is something even serious orthodox Dengists would recognise. As Deng Xiaoping said: if a socialist state creates a massive income gap (like China now), then it is not real socialism anymore.

1) The challenge, for anyone who wants to take it up is plain and simple. Prove (objectively with evidence) that the Chinese workers state has relinquished control to the capitalist class.

Well, most of the ruling class in China today are super-rich. Many are billionnaires who have multiple wives and send their children to expensive private schools in the West. If this is not bourgeois I don't know what is. Have you ever heard of the phrase "billionnaire proletarian"? :rolleyes:

You may argue that bureaucrats who are not really very rich but have a different relation to the means of production compared with the mass of workers can still be considered to be a part of the "proletarian vanguard" due to their ideological stance, but how can billionnaires be the vanguards of a proletarian political party?

2) Show how Marx and Lenin were wrong to say that capitalist social relations are inevitable under a revolutionary workers state. (use evidence)

Lenin referred to the existence of wage differences and a monetary economy under socialism (the transitional stage between capitalism and communism) as necessary, which I think is correct, but this is not the same as market economics. It is possible to have a socialist meritocracy without any market elements at all in order to stimulate production.

You are crazy, comrade, and you have no understanding of Leninism or the NEP, not even at the elementary level.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 13:32

Is that is from you? Are you sure you don’t want more time to back up you’re unsupported assertions and subjective narrative with evidence? Please take as much time as you need.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

15th June 2011, 17:03

Is that is from you? Are you sure you don’t want more time to back up you’re unsupported assertions and subjective narrative with evidence? Please take as much time as you need.

What about the fact that the CCP lets private businessmen actually join the party? What about the fact that these private businessmen are routinely corrupting public officials to be given land or skirt environmental regulations? Or the fact that working class people have their land expropriated in these schemes that profit the business class when they receive next to no compensation for their losses since said corrupt officials are skimming cash from the restitution funds?

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=55423&t=China%3A+++Guangdong%3A+thousands+of+migrants+pr otest+against+local+authorities+and+residents

China: Guangdong: thousands of migrants protest against local authorities and residents

Protesters take to the streets to avenge a young pregnant woman who was abused. Local city sees three days of urban guerrilla. Experts note that the systematic denial of justice is causing frustrations to boil over into greater violence.

Monday, June 13, 2011
By Asia News (http://www.speroforum.com/site/subs.asp?b=147) http://www.speroforum.com/site/images/more.gif (http://www.speroforum.com/site/subs.asp?b=147)

Shanghai – Riots broke out in Zengcheng, central Guangdong, where only heavy police presence stopped thousands of demonstrators, mostly migrant workers from Sichuan, from attacking public facilities and residents’ cars. Meanwhile, in Lichuan, Hubei, at least five officials have arrested or suspended in connection with the death of Ran Jianxin. At around 9 pm last night, more than a thousand migrant workers marched along the main road in Xintang town. Police stopped then from reaching Phoenix City, an upmarket residential complex.
Online postings reported seeing demonstrators smashing cars and public facilities as they advanced. Armed police tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas but the demonstrators were quick to regroup and continue the violence.
The rioting started late on Friday after a 20-year-old pregnant woman, Wang Lianmei, from Sichuan was allegedly manhandled by security staff in front of a supermarket in Dadun village, Xintang. The security guards, hired by the local government, were said to have tried to stop the woman peddling goods.
The incident led to a protest by Sichuan migrants, tens of thousands of whom work in Xintang and Guangzhou. Many of them took to the streets in their hundreds, perhaps thousands, attacking police vehicles and public buildings. On Saturday, they also attacked parked cars, setting some on fire, and smashed store windows.
On Sunday, massive police presence did not prevent demonstrations. Residents shut down their stores and got away. At least 25 people were arrested.
Significantly, migrant protest was not only directed at the authorities and the police, but also at local residents, especially in upmarket neighbourhoods, indicating the level of frustrations migrants feel since they are not allowed to take up residence in the city where they work, and have been denied basic rights (education, health care, housing) for decades amid the indifference of local residents.
In the meantime, a tense calm prevails in Lichuan (Hubei), following days of protest for the death of Ran, a local government official who had tried to protect people from expropriations.
Ran died under suspicious circumstances whilst in police custody after he was arrested on corruption charges. Photos of his dead body have been posted online, showing signs of torture. Ran’s family is convinced that he was punished for accusing one of his bosses of corruption over land seizure.
“People are getting frustrated” at the “systemic exploitation of the have-nots, people at the bottom of the barrel,” said Willy Wo-lap Lam, an adjunct professor of history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. However, the “formidable state control mechanism is still viable. I don’t think the regime is susceptible to being overcome by a Chinese-style Jasmine revolution,” he said.
Still, last year China spent more on domestic security than it did on national defence, Finance Ministry data indicate. The increase in police spending comes as mass incidents, which include protests, riots and strikes, topped 180,000 last year, this according to Sun Liping, a professor of sociology at Beijing’s Tsinghua University.
Protests are often caused by economic grievances like low compensation for land expropriations. Angered by corrupt officials, beaten by police, without any channel to exercise their rights, people take to the streets or carry out sensational acts of violence. For example, a man called Qian Mingqi died in one of the three blasts he triggered in protest over unfair compensation he had been offered in a resettlement scheme.

There's some evidence of the flaws of Post-Dengist "Market Socialism"

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-rice-bowl/china-development-china-economy-forced-evictions

It is said that China is being rebuilt with a wrecking ball, and all around there is evidence that this is true.
Homes are being destroyed at an alarming rate to make way for more profitable development, and very little thought is given to what residents are supposed to do next.
It's a frenzy that leaves people floundering. And just as government officials will do anything to overtake land from people who are settled there, those people will in turn react with drastic measures.
A recent article translated from Chinese at World Crunch (http://www.worldcrunch.com/building-china-wrecking-ball/3271) (originally published in the Economic Observer (http://www.eeo.com.cn/2011/0608/203241.shtml)), chronicles recent and devastating acts committed by people who had their rights trampled on in the name of development.
The list is sobering:

December 2009, Tang Fuzhen, a woman from the southwestern Sichuan province, burned herself to death following the forced demolition of her home.
In September 2010, three members of the Zhong Rujiu family in southeastern Jiangxi province poured gasoline over their heads because of a bungled compensation deal.
In late January, Chen Feng, a farmer in southeastern Guangdong province reportedly decapitated a ranger on the nature reserve where Feng had been renting land. He had been repeatedly told to evacuate the property, and had requested to leave after the New Year. His request was refused, at which time he turned on a ranger and then committed suicide by taking poison.
On May 26, a disgruntled farmer set off a series of explosions in Fuzhou, Jiangxi province, which shook the prosecutor’s office, a government office, and the district food and drug administration building.

As Wei Yingjie writes, "As long as forced demolitions are arbitrarily imposed, and local governments continue to act despotically, violent protests will continue. ...
"Even if the New China is built with a wrecking ball, surging hatred and indignation can bring it all crumbling down again."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13779404

China in lead poisoning 'cover-up' - Human Rights Watch

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53066000/jpg/_53066268_china.jpg A Chinese child waits to be tested for lead poisoning in January
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13779404#story_continues_1) Related Stories

Poisoning shuts China factories (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13594890)
China factory workers 'poisoned' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12135009)
Chinese children 'lead-poisoned' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12125192)

China has been accused of trying to cover up the extent of lead poisoning among children, and of blocking effective testing and treatment.
A report by Human Rights Watch says local authorities in heavily-polluted industrial areas have been sending sick children back to contaminated homes.
It says that in these areas - Henan, Yunnan, Shaanxi and Hunan provinces - anyone who complains is being harassed.
China has promised to clean up chronic pollution from heavy metals.
But reports of poisoning remain widespread - hundreds of thousands of children are suffering from lead poisoning, the HRW report (http://www.hrw.org/node/99793) says.
It says that parents are being denied the right to tests and medical help, and says the government should stop delaying a meaningful response as the problem would damage future economic growth and health care.
Fearful ignorance "Children with dangerously high levels of lead in their blood are being refused treatment and returned home to contaminated houses in polluted villages," said Joe Amon, the health and human rights director at Human Rights Watch.
There was no immediate response from the Chinese government to the allegations.
The report was based on interviews conducted with 52 parents and grandparents whose children or grandchildren have lead poisoning, as well as five journalists who had reported on the subject.
Lead poisoning often comes from smelting or recycling plants, or as in a recent case factories making tin foil.
The researchers found that parents often had little understanding of why their children did not grow properly, had anaemia or hearing loss.
"They didn't know what was happening," Mr Amon told the BBC's Annemarie Evans in Hong Kong.
"They took their kids into the clinic. They were told they lived too far from the factory to get tested for lead, or they were told the kids had lead in their blood but there was nothing that could be done for it."
Earlier this year, battery factories across China were closed and about 74 people detained after reports that more than 100 people were affected by lead and cadmium poisoning.
Another more recent case, in Zhejiang, involved 600 people, including more than 100 children, suffering poisoning from tinfoil processing workshops.

caramelpence

15th June 2011, 17:16

that the Chinese state isn’t “privatising” everything as the anti-China ‘lefts’ like to claim,

I agree, the Chinese government isn't privatizing everything, the most important sectors of the economy like the defense and finance industries remain under the control and ownership of the state and the state also has a strong level of influence over foreign and domestic private enterprise. What I object to is not the idea that the state has an important role in the Chinese economy, it's the assumption that state ownership entails socialism or is in tension with capitalism. The state was also a key economic actor during the Nanjing Decade, and the developmental state as a model for overcoming primary product dependency and low value manufacturing has been a major part of the economic history of the region as a whole, but at no point during the post-war period, regardless of the level or form of state intervention, did China or Malaysia or Thailand or any other country in the region cease being capitalist. The reason for this is that capitalism is not defined in terms of the judicial recognition of private property rights, but the existence of commodity production and its corollary, alienated labour, and in China today there is generalized commodity production, with the result being that the producers find themselves dominated by the products of their labour. Put differently, the question I find myself wanting to ask the proponents of Chinese socialism is this: I don't know whether any of you have had the opportunity to visit China or not, or, if you have, what provinces and cities you managed to visit, but based on what you do know about China, and particularly the nature of ordinary social and cultural life rather than the government's policy announcements and rhetoric, do you think that contemporary China is the kind of society that socialists should be aspiring towards, as an immediate goal if not as our ultimate objective? Do you think that China, with its prostitution, inequality, corruption, unemployment, unprotected migrant laborers, is an adequate expression of the fundamental values that comprise the socialist vision?

Queercommie Girl

15th June 2011, 17:19

Do you think that China, with its prostitution, inequality, corruption, unemployment, unprotected migrant laborers, is an adequate expression of the fundamental values that comprise the socialist vision?

I don't necessarily see prostitution as reactionary at all, but the other points are very telling.

I would also say that rich capitalists in China having multiple wives is far worse than any form of prostitution.

Of course, even if sex work is not intrinsically reactionary, the particular way in which women (and men) are engaged in sex work in China today is still very bad.

As with all other workers, I believe sex workers in China today need genuine trade union representation.

RED DAVE

15th June 2011, 18:47

Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame

15th June 2011, 18:59

Just for the record, Chinese industry is now, by value of assets, about 70% privatized. This is about the same percentage as Russia.

Anyone thinking that China is anything else but an aggressive capitalist state doesn't know how to read.

RED DAVE

Its quite obvious that China has continually acted in the interests of Capitalism through Imperialist Actions in the Developing World that seek to expand Chinese Foreign Influence and Capital.

Those who attempt to imply otherwise are failing to understand the nature of Imperialism and Capitalism and how the Chinese State relates to both thereof or are attempting to maintain that China has not fully degenerated into the emerging Imperialist Capitalist power that it currently is.

danyboy27

15th June 2011, 23:14

1) The challenge, for anyone who wants to take it up is plain and simple. Prove (objectively with evidence) that the Chinese workers state has relinquished control to the capitalist class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

Foxconn is a transnational corporation, and are violating chinese laws. Take note that everybody in china is well aware of that, and the only one who really took action was the corporation itself.

----
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3031

The workers work 11 hours a day, in violation of both Chinese labour law and the Nike Code of Conduct.1 In addition to this arduous schedule, all must work overtime. If they refuse they can be fined $1.20 - $3.61(10-30Rmb) or docked the entire day's pay. Several of the workers mentioned that they did not realise that they would be forced to work overtime when they were hired. The overtime of 2-4 hours (on top of the 11 hour work day) violates China's Labour Law, which allows for only 36 hours of overtime per month. The Labour Law and Nike's Code of Conduct both clearly state that coerced labour is not acceptable, yet workers in Wellco are forced to work long hours or they will be subject to termination.
Workers only get 2-4 days off every month. This violates both China's Labour Law and Nike's Code, which states that workers are entitled to at least one day of rest every week. After working at the factory for one year, workers are given an annual leave of five days, and after two years this becomes seven days.

i doubt the worker still have real control over the structures if the corporation can without any problems, violate chinese laws, something the chinese authorities are well aware of.

the chinese governement willfully allow a big transnational corporation to exploit the worker, suck them dry.

2) Show how Marx and Lenin were wrong to say that capitalist social relations are inevitable under a revolutionary workers state. (use evidence)

you took stuff out of context, other people already pointed that out for you.

Blackscare

15th June 2011, 23:15

China is absolutely saturated in shemp.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 23:30

Lenin says that using capitalism to bolster industry is a restoration of capitalism, as your own use of the quote shows. So, you contend that capitalism has been restored in China?

In other news - China represses workers:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/massive-workers-riots-t156363/index.html?t=156363

Yes I do, by the workers state, as Lenin advised the workers and peasants of Russia and the world. If you don’t believe me, and why should you, read Lenin for yourself.

Threetune

15th June 2011, 23:37

Since my last post the only thing offered by way of replies has been unsupported assertions, mostly gleaned from imperialist sources and thrown in as fact with no criticism or supporting evidence let alone any evidence of Marxist understanding which is of course not required for a shallow display reactionary prejudice.
Except for this

I agree, the Chinese government isn't privatizing everything, the most important sectors of the economy like the defense and finance industries remain under the control and ownership of the state and the state also has a strong level of influence over foreign and domestic private enterprise. What I object to is not the idea that the state has an important role in the Chinese economy, it's the assumption that state ownership entails socialism or is in tension with capitalism. The state was also a key economic actor during the Nanjing Decade, and the developmental state as a model for overcoming primary product dependency and low value manufacturing has been a major part of the economic history of the region as a whole, but at no point during the post-war period, regardless of the level or form of state intervention, did China or Malaysia or Thailand or any other country in the region cease being capitalist. The reason for this is that capitalism is not defined in terms of the judicial recognition of private property rights, but the existence of commodity production and its corollary, alienated labour, and in China today there is generalized commodity production, with the result being that the producers find themselves dominated by the products of their labour. Put differently, the question I find myself wanting to ask the proponents of Chinese socialism is this: I don't know whether any of you have had the opportunity to visit China or not, or, if you have, what provinces and cities you managed to visit, but based on what you do know about China, and particularly the nature of ordinary social and cultural life rather than the government's policy announcements and rhetoric, do you think that contemporary China is the kind of society that socialists should be aspiring towards, as an immediate goal if not as our ultimate objective? Do you think that China, with its prostitution, inequality, corruption, unemployment, unprotected migrant laborers, is an adequate expression of the fundamental values that comprise the socialist vision?
I’ll answer to your main question (in bold) first. It would be foolhardy or un-Marxist if you like, to aspire to any other nation or region’s form of development with all its historical and cultural particulars, socialist or not. So the answer is no. However this incisive contribution and question deserves more than a simple “no”.

The questions being thrown up so far in this thread point to a much deeper problem in fact than the nature of the Chinese state itself even. They are the idealist notions about what socialism is or should be, to the extent that any actual attempt at socialism is always regarded on a scale ranging from inadequate to reactionary, because it doesn’t fit the ‘ideal’, which is of course subjective or as you describe “the socialist vision”. And what can ever live up to everyone’s ‘ideal vision’.

The only Marxist –Leninist way to tackle this is first to look at the world as it is, or rather as it’s changing and describe it, rather than adopting a “position” subjectively and trying to make the world fit that position. I agree completely “that capitalism is not defined in terms of the judicial recognition of private property rights, but the existence of commodity production and its corollary, alienated labour, and in China today there is generalized commodity production, with the result being that the producers find themselves dominated by the products of their labour.”
The experience of the world’s revolutionary struggles since 1917 should tell us that that is to be expected. It is the notion that we have a socialistic revolution and then the end of capitalism soon after as the ‘ideal vision’ , that I think is the mistaken one.

However, your intervention intriguingly suggests that there never was a proletarian seizure of power in China and therefore no ‘workers state’ to be overthrown by capitalism. I must admit that that idea had never crossed my mind, but I’m content to give it head room if it can be supported with evidence and it certainly shouldn’t be left out of the discussion. If that is what you'r suggesting?

Threetune

15th June 2011, 23:44

you took stuff out of context, other people already pointed that out for you.

Show how I “took stuff out of context”, go on let us see you do it. That will be fun.

danyboy27

15th June 2011, 23:55

Show how I “took stuff out of context”, go on let us see you do it. That will be fun.

i dont know enough Marx and Lenin for that, on the other hand, i suggest you to take look at whole thread, other have has i said, pointed that out verry well.

and has usual you ignored the part of my post where you would have to deal with evidence and facts.

But, tell me threetune, if China is a worker state, how come buisnesses like foxconn, Nike and adidas can deliberately violate several official chinese law, work the chinese people to the bone and get away with it?

Even in Fucking Canada for christ sake, (that isnt a worker state) such blatant violation of basic working condition of so many people in plain sight would translate into consecutive prison terms for those who willingly exploited and brutalised so many workers.

The_Outernationalist

16th June 2011, 00:02

I would never use this website, EVER, to do anything serious to support revolutionaries in China...and if I did know something that was useful to the left, Revleft would NEVER know...we'd just be roaded by people obsessed with identity politics and anarchists.

This site is only an interesting diversion.

Threetune

16th June 2011, 00:16

i dont know enough Marx and Lenin for that, on the other hand, i suggest you to take look at whole thread, other have has i said, pointed that out verry well.

and has usual you ignored the part of my post where you would have to deal with evidence and facts.

But, tell me threetune, if China is a worker state, how come buisnesses like foxconn, Nike and adidas can deliberately violate several official chinese law, work the chinese people to the bone and get away with it?

Even in Fucking Canada for christ sake, (that isnt a worker state) such blatant violation of basic working condition of so many people in plain sight would translate into consecutive prison terms for those who willingly exploited and brutalised so many workers.

So why do you say “stuff” you can’t back up? Seriously, ask yourself that question. I don't need the answer.
The revisionist party in China have not been taking care of the workers as per the Leninist NEP. They have shamed themselves as a communist party on a host of issues, not least by crawling to imperialism over Libya and ‘condemnation’ of “terror”. But lots of ‘lefts’ would support them on that, would'nt they?
The debate has been about whether China has a workers state or not and whether such a state should manage capitalism. So what questions of yours have I not answered? Just point to the relevant post and I’m on it.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th June 2011, 00:19

Threetune

16th June 2011, 00:27

danyboy27

16th June 2011, 00:29

So why do you say “stuff” you can’t back up? Seriously, ask yourself that question. I don't need the answer.
The revisionist party in China have not been taking care of the workers as per the Leninist NEP. They have shamed themselves as a communist party on a host of issues, not least by crawling to imperialism over Libya and ‘condemnation’ of “terror”. But lots of ‘lefts’ would support them on that, would'nt they?
The debate has been about whether China has a workers state or not and whether such a state should manage capitalism. So what questions of yours have I not answered? Just point to the relevant post and I’m on it.

So china isnt a worker state after all eh?

Threetune

16th June 2011, 00:43

This guy is ridiculous.

He is actually using the NEP - which was at best, a necessary Capitalist deviation in reaction to the war communism policy of 1918-21 - to justify what is, in China, not a deviation but as close to absolute Capitalist restoration as it comes.

The NEP existed for less than a decade, and already by 1929 the results were clear - inequality, poverty and still, the policy of 1929 onwards (i.e., non-NEP) of collectivisation and industrialisation still out-did the NEP in terms of growth, living standards, industrialisation and so on.

How can anybody serious defend what is essentially a 30 year lasting NEP? 70% of China is private, healthcare is not free, people work double-digit hour days for a pittance whilst the other class enrich themselves.

If this is Socialism, then i'm a glorious anti-Socialist.

Furthermore, it isn't Socialism, and it will never come to pass as Socialism. No Pasaran. Pasaremos!

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of
The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

“These contradictions are no accident, and they will persist for several decades. For one thing, these contradictions are inherent in every school. And the trade unions are a school of communism. We cannot count, until the lapse of several decades, on the majority of the workers achieving the highest level of development and discarding all traces and memories of the “school”for adults. Secondly, as long as survivals of capitalism and small production remain, contradictions between them and the young shoots of socialism are inevitable throughout the social system.” Lenin

Edit: By this standard, Leninism, your are "a glorious anti-Socialist."

Impulse97

16th June 2011, 00:51

Threetune

16th June 2011, 01:02

So china isnt a worker state after all eh?

By your own admission you can’t back up what you say because you are ignorant of Marx and Lenin. Also you can’t point me to the posts you say I didn’t answer and now you make silly remarks. How old are you? I strongly suggest you read and study some Lenin if you are to become anything other than a heckling time waster. Who are you showing off to anyway?

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of
The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

“The conversion of state enterprises to what is called the profit basis is inevitably and inseparably connected with the New Economic Policy; in the near future this is bound to become the predominant, if not the sole, form of state enterprise. Actually, this means that with the free market now permitted and developing, the state enterprises, will to a large extent be put on a commercial, capitalist basis.” Lenin

danyboy27

16th June 2011, 02:35

By your own admission you can’t back up what you say because you are ignorant of Marx and Lenin. Also you can’t point me to the posts you say I didn’t answer and now you make silly remarks. How old are you? I strongly suggest you read and study some Lenin if you are to become anything other than a heckling time waster. Who are you showing off to anyway?

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of
The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

“The conversion of state enterprises to what is called the profit basis is inevitably and inseparably connected with the New Economic Policy; in the near future this is bound to become the predominant, if not the sole, form of state enterprise. Actually, this means that with the free market now permitted and developing, the state enterprises, will to a large extent be put on a commercial, capitalist basis.” Lenin

The definition of what a is a worker state is not limited to the interpretation of Lenin you know, or maybe you dont since lenin never said nowhere that there was many definition from many groups about what is a worker state, and apparently, you only read lenin.

The basic critera for a worker state seem to be quite simple, the worker must be in control somehow, either dirrectly or indirrectly of the mean of production, otherwise why would you call it a fucking worker state!

knowing that:
1.the chinese worker have no control over the mean of production beccause corporation and the chinese elite are running the show

2.that the chinese political system is far from being democratic or representative from the workers.

3. that Union busting is something quite common in China and encouraged by the foreign corporation exploiting the people there.

4. That the chinese governement willfully allow the constant violation and exploitation of its worker.

5.that the chinese governement is walking hand to hand with capitalist and corporation to fleece the worker from the fruit of their labor.

we can assume that the chinese state is NOT a working state.

Jose Gracchus

16th June 2011, 03:04

Why is quoting what Lenin or the CP said about the NEP and the nature of its productive relations and impact upon the working class, make it true? Maybe one could provide actual evidence, rather than relying purely and solely on Lenin et al's Scout's Honor.

Threetune

16th June 2011, 04:19

[/COLOR]

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the NEP in principle, but what China is doing today is definitely not NEP. Like I said, you ignore quantity solely in favour of quality. Lenin may believe that in some circumstances it may be necessary to apply market economics to a minority of the economy, and this belief may indeed be justified in some cases, but in China today market economics has almost completely taken over.

It's definitely not the NEP. This is something even serious orthodox Dengists would recognise. As Deng Xiaoping said: if a socialist state creates a massive income gap (like China now), then it is not real socialism anymore.

Well, most of the ruling class in China today are super-rich. Many are billionnaires who have multiple wives and send their children to expensive private schools in the West. If this is not bourgeois I don't know what is. Have you ever heard of the phrase "billionnaire proletarian"? :rolleyes:

You may argue that bureaucrats who are not really very rich but have a different relation to the means of production compared with the mass of workers can still be considered to be a part of the "proletarian vanguard" due to their ideological stance, but how can billionnaires be the vanguards of a proletarian political party?

Lenin referred to the existence of wage differences and a monetary economy under socialism (the transitional stage between capitalism and communism) as necessary, which I think is correct, but this is not the same as market economics. It is possible to have a socialist meritocracy without any market elements at all in order to stimulate production.

You are crazy, comrade, and you have no understanding of Leninism or the NEP, not even at the elementary level.

It is obvious to me that you haven’t studied the most important works of Lenin on the subject of NEP, and the importance he gave to the dictatorship of the proletariat, but you posture mightily on the subject. I think that’s fraudulent. Well, now you’ll have do some reading (which will be a good thing) if you are going to refute Lenin's arguments and show how you think I’ve misrepresented the bloke.
Just to get you started. Emphasis added.

“In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control, are now being permitted and are developing[COLOR=black]; on the other hand, the state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i.e., they are in effect being largely reorganised on commercial and capitalist lines.” Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy.
Or
“The conversion of state enterprises to what is called the profit basis is inevitably and inseparably connected with the New Economic Policy; in the near future this is bound to become the predominant, if not the sole, form of state enterprise. Actually, this means that with the free market now permitted and developing, the state enterprises, will to a large extent be put on a commercial, capitalist basis.”
Or this
"The factory management, usually built up on the principle of one-man responsibility, must have authority independently to fix and pay out wages, and also distribute rations, working clothes, and all other supplies; it must enjoy the utmost freedom to manoeuvre, exercise strict control of the actual successes achieved in increasing production, in making the factory pay its way and show a profit, and carefully select the most talented and capable administrative personnel, etc. Under these circumstances, any direct interference by the trade unions in the management of the factories must be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible.” Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy.
And again
“These contradictions are no accident, and they will persist for several decades. For one thing, these contradictions are inherent in every school. And the trade unions are a school of communism. We cannot count, until the lapse of several decades, on the majority of the workers achieving the highest level of development and discarding all traces and memories of the “school ”for adults. Secondly, as long as survivals of capitalism and small production remain, contradictions between them and the young shoots of socialism are inevitable throughout the social system.”Lenin Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

It seems to me that China started this process later after their revolution than happened in Russia and it’s still ongoing. If you think that workers states in predominantly present countries can raise the economic, technical and cultural level without harnessing capitalism in the way that Lenin began, then why not simply explain how to do it.

It is not certain at all that the gruesome revisionist party in China has the theoretical ability to see the task through to communism, but the western ‘lefts’, utterly ignorant and philistine with regard to developing the dictatorship of the proletariat are in no position to give lectures to anyone.

The best that most of the anti-China ‘left’ can advance is some romantic ‘ideal’ of perfect, democratic socialism and nothing about defeating imperialism and their own ruling class by revolution is ever said to the workers now fighting the cuts, only pages of anti-China propaganda straight from imperialism’s press releases. The irony is that most of the ‘lefts’ found themselves in political agreement with the cowardly Chinese UN representatives in not apposing imperialisms attack on Libya.

16th June 2011, 05:24

Vladimir Innit Lenin

16th June 2011, 07:14

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of
The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

“These contradictions are no accident, and they will persist for several decades. For one thing, these contradictions are inherent in every school. And the trade unions are a school of communism. We cannot count, until the lapse of several decades, on the majority of the workers achieving the highest level of development and discarding all traces and memories of the “school”for adults. Secondly, as long as survivals of capitalism and small production remain, contradictions between them and the young shoots of socialism are inevitable throughout the social system.” Lenin

Edit: By this standard, Leninism, your are "a glorious anti-Socialist."

Like I and many others have said, it became clear by 1929, even to the Leninists, that the NEP had run its course (at best, at worst it was a mistake), and it has become clear, with hindsight, that the programmes of collectivisation and industrialisation were far more efficient and socially equitable ways of transforming the Russian economy from an agrarian, peasant-based one, to an industrialised, productive one.

I'm not a Leninist but I recognise it, at least, as a veritable current of Socialism.

What I do not recognise as Socialism is the Capitalist paradise that is China, you stinky troll ;)

DaringMehring

16th June 2011, 07:23

Yes I do, by the workers state, as Lenin advised the workers and peasants of Russia and the world. If you don’t believe me, and why should you, read Lenin for yourself.

First of all, I have read Lenin, and what he sets out in his seminal State & Revolution differs from today's China as night from day.

You continually insist that capitalism "can be used for the development of the socialist state." A dubious idea, proved false by history, and begging the question -- as Marxists we are concerned with who rules in the state, who holds the state power. According to Marx the state is a means of adjudicating class differences in favor of the ruling class. In China, who else is it but the capitalist class who now rules the state? Capitalists were allowed into the CP, the "Princelings" are extremely wealthy. It is true that the rural and poorer elements are constituted as a faction within the Party, the "populist coalition," and thereby have more sway than they might under bourgeois democracy. But the "populist coalition" itself is not communistic in any proper sense, and anyway is the little brother of the "elitist coalition." There is no way to say that the Chinese state apparatus is the instrument of anyone other than the Chinese bourgeoisie.

You can say "capitalism can be used for the development of the socialist state" -- and maybe it can, in some short-run, if you've got V.I. Lenin running the show, though history has never proved this possibility. But capitalist accumulation produces the bourgeoisie as the economically dominant class and they aren't interested in socialist development. The ruling class in China is the bourgeoisie. Xi Jinping, Le Keqiang, and the rest of the gang have nothing to do with the socialist proletariat.

Threetune

16th June 2011, 18:01

I need to ferret out some supporting evidence for my answer. Until then…

danyboy27

17th June 2011, 01:19

Well, since threetune have decided to leave the conservation, perhaps we could continue the discussion about china?

Can someone could point me out exactly when china stopped being a worker state and embraced capitalist reforms?

Chambered Word

18th June 2011, 16:24

Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of
The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy

“These contradictions are no accident, and they will persist for several decades. For one thing, these contradictions are inherent in every school. And the trade unions are a school of communism. We cannot count, until the lapse of several decades, on the majority of the workers achieving the highest level of development and discarding all traces and memories of the “school”for adults. Secondly, as long as survivals of capitalism and small production remain, contradictions between them and the young shoots of socialism are inevitable throughout the social system.” Lenin

Edit: By this standard, Leninism, your are "a glorious anti-Socialist."

Nice to see you quoting Lenin like his words were holy scripture. Whenever I read your posts I actually want to off myself. Thanks for making RevLeft a worse site.

I don't believe how anyone can actually accomplish the mental gymnastics that are needed to think of China as having anything to do with socialism, must be a rare talent of sorts. :(

Threetune

19th June 2011, 14:43

First of all, I have read Lenin, and what he sets out in his seminal State & Revolution differs from today's China as night from day.

You continually insist that capitalism "can be used for the development of the socialist state." A dubious idea, proved false by history, and begging the question -- as Marxists we are concerned with who rules in the state, who holds the state power. According to Marx the state is a means of adjudicating class differences in favor of the ruling class. In China, who else is it but the capitalist class who now rules the state? Capitalists were allowed into the CP, the "Princelings" are extremely wealthy. It is true that the rural and poorer elements are constituted as a faction within the Party, the "populist coalition," and thereby have more sway than they might under bourgeois democracy. But the "populist coalition" itself is not communistic in any proper sense, and anyway is the little brother of the "elitist coalition." There is no way to say that the Chinese state apparatus is the instrument of anyone other than the Chinese bourgeoisie.

You can say "capitalism can be used for the development of the socialist state" -- and maybe it can, in some short-run, if you've got V.I. Lenin running the show, though history has never proved this possibility. But capitalist accumulation produces the bourgeoisie as the economically dominant class and they aren't interested in socialist development. The ruling class in China is the bourgeoisie. Xi Jinping, Le Keqiang, and the rest of the gang have nothing to do with the socialist proletariat.

The outrage of the contemporary ‘lefts’ when discovering that their formal idealist positions toward China have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism would be comical but for the essential reactionary philistine prejudice it harbours. Unable to answer Lenin on the necessity of introducing the capitalistic ‘New Economic Policy ‘or similar in peasant dominated economies under the dictatorship of the proletariat they advance the same phony bourgeois reformist “human rights” program as imperialism against the Chinese state, all wrapped up in red flags and programs about what ‘aught’ to happen for disguise, but never able to advance a cogent argument for what a can actually happen.

Let Engels explain better.

The Peasant War in Germany by Frederick Engels. Chapter 6
The Peasant War in Thuringia, Alsace and Austria

“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party”

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government — not to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies — is either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch06.htm

And this little essay from Bukarin.

“ If the proletariat wins in this long and arduous battle, the most capable groups of capitalists will have served during the period of incubation of the new economic system as capitalist experts and thus, against their will, they will have labored for the benefit of the working classes”..Nikolai Bukharin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/index.htm)(1888-1938)http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1922/economic-organisation.htm)

The solution is revolution in the western capitalism but don’t expect our ‘lefts’ to accomplish that, they are too busy joining the decaying imperialists attack on China to ever recommend “defeat” for imperialist warmongering to the working class. Just check out the ‘left’ news papers with their pacifist “Stop the war” pleading, not ever a mention of revolutionary “defeat”!

Crux

19th June 2011, 15:03

Buying into imperialist propaganda that hasn't a leg to stand on - check

Ignoring the fact that no capitalist class holds state power in the PRC - check

Godwin's Rule - check
"92) The Chinese state, including the Communist Party of China, has essential elements of what is known as Bonapartism, meaning the ruling party has to a degree straddled the class divide and has a foot in the camps of the bourgeoisie and the working class. The actual living experience of China in its evolution since 1949 is without precedent. Its differences with the Soviet Union’s evolution require us to acknowledge that it is not an exactly analogous social formation at this point.
93) The destruction and incremental dissolution of public ownership, centralized planning and the monopoly of foreign trade constitutes a historic setback for the Chinese working class. Its rights and interests have either been stripp"

But of course this does not to deter you from rushing to it's defence.

"our Party would offer militant political defense of the Chinese government in spite of our profound differences with so-called “market socialism.”"

Ah, opportunism.

Threetune

19th June 2011, 15:18

"92) The Chinese state, including the Communist Party of China, has essential elements of what is known as Bonapartism, meaning the ruling party has to a degree straddled the class divide and has a foot in the camps of the bourgeoisie and the working class. The actual living experience of China in its evolution since 1949 is without precedent. Its differences with the Soviet Union’s evolution require us to acknowledge that it is not an exactly analogous social formation at this point.
93) The destruction and incremental dissolution of public ownership, centralized planning and the monopoly of foreign trade constitutes a historic setback for the Chinese working class. Its rights and interests have either been stripp"

But of course this does not to deter you from rushing to it's defence.

"our Party would offer militant political defense of the Chinese government in spite of our profound differences with so-called “market socialism.”"

Ah, opportunism.

In-credible, as usual. When are you going to call for the “defeat” of the imperialist warmongers rather than joining them in their attack on China and dressing it all up as siding with “the workers”? Why are you so determined to agitate for “permanent revolution” in China but can’t even manage to put out a leaflet in Europe arguing for the “defeat” of your own ruling class here?

Crux

19th June 2011, 15:31

In-credible, as usual. When are you going to call for the “defeat” of the imperialist warmongers rather than joining them in their attack on China and dressing it all up as siding with “the workers”? Why are you so determined to agitate for “permanent revolution” in China but can’t even manage to put out a leaflet in Europe arguing for the “defeat” of your own ruling class here?
You are so full of shit, "comrade". When will we oppose imperialism? Always. But I suppose you are too busy fawning over Qadaffi, Assad and Hu Jintao to notice.

Threetune

19th June 2011, 18:41

You are so full of shit, "comrade". When will we oppose imperialism? Always. But I suppose you are too busy fawning over Qadaffi, Assad and Hu Jintao to notice.

I beg your pardon, perhaps you can show me the “left” editorials from your red press arguing for the “defeat” of imperialist war in any area. Alternatively, you could always try arguing with the quotes from Marx, Lenin, Engels and Bukharin on the matter in hand that are posed above, rather than having abusive infantile tantrums.

Crux

19th June 2011, 19:35

I beg your pardon, perhaps you can show me the “left” editorials from your red press arguing for the “defeat” of imperialist war in any area. Alternatively, you could always try arguing with the quotes from Marx, Lenin, Engels and Bukharin on the matter in hand that are posed above, rather than having abusive infantile tantrums.
Social democrats (and I am being kind here) quoting marxists out of context for their own purposes is hardly anything new.
How is the Engels quote helping your position in any way? Unless you are arguing that socialist revolution is impossible in countries you deem not evolved enough?

http://www.google.de/search?as_sitesearch=socialistworld.net&as_q=anti-war&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

Threetune

19th June 2011, 20:49

Social democrats (and I am being kind here) quoting marxists out of context for their own purposes is hardly anything new.
How is the Engels quote helping your position in any way? Unless you are arguing that socialist revolution is impossible in countries you deem not evolved enough?

http://www.google.de/search?as_sitesearch=socialistworld.net&as_q=anti-war&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
The revolution is possible, idealist ‘socialism’ as punted about by you ‘lefts’ isn’t,you should learn the difference. Now demonstrate the 'out of context quoting'. Your mates have tried that one without success, let’s see you have a go.

Threetune

19th June 2011, 21:32

Even where Lenin is bending the stick in the direction of Cooperation he is still saying that a "distinct historical epoch" for building socialism is needed. Not the idealist quick fix drivel being punted about on here.

Edit: Sorry, here is the Quote.
On Cooperation

Written: January 4 & 6, 1923

“It seems to me that not enough attention is being paid to the cooperative movement in our country. Not everyone understands that now, since the time of the October revolution and quite apart from NEP (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/n/e.htm#nep) (on the contrary, in this connection we must say—because of NEP), our cooperative movement has become one of great significance.”…

“But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the cooperatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. Nevertheless, it will be a distinct historical epoch, and without this historical epoch, without universal literacy, without a proper degree of efficiency, without training the population sufficiently to acquire the habit of book reading, and without the material basis for this, without a certain sufficiency to safeguard against, say, bad harvests, famine, etc.—without this we shall not achieve our object.”

bailey_187

19th June 2011, 21:35

threetune, is what is imperialism and how does it relate to china?

Crux

19th June 2011, 22:13

The revolution is possible, idealist ‘socialism’ as punted about by you ‘lefts’ isn’t,in other words I take it you are neither left nor socialist? You should be aware that this is a forum for the revolutionary left.
you should learn the difference. Now demonstrate the 'out of context quoting'. Your mates have tried that one without success, let’s see you have a go.Simple, the present policy of China is not comparable to NEP either in content or direction. In other words what Lenin has to say aboutthe NEP is irrelevant when discussing china.

Die Neue Zeit

26th June 2011, 17:10

The reason for this is that capitalism is not defined in terms of the judicial recognition of private property rights, but the existence of commodity production and its corollary, alienated labour, and in China today there is generalized commodity production, with the result being that the producers find themselves dominated by the products of their labour.

Capitalism is defined in terms of all three, and generalized commodity production existed in China for decades before Mao. :glare:

Jose Gracchus

27th June 2011, 05:16

Capitalism is defined in terms of all three, and generalized commodity production existed in China for decades before Mao. :glare:

You seem to be under the unfortunate illusion that anyone considers you an authority on...well, anything.

Find me where in Marx or Engels' works where either identifies the capitalist mode of production with all three.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

27th June 2011, 11:24

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/china-trade-union-global-movement

Good to see teh Great Socialist Peoples' Republic satisfying its workers' needs:rolleyes:

manic expression

27th June 2011, 13:01

"92) The Chinese state, including the Communist Party of China, has essential elements of what is known as Bonapartism, meaning the ruling party has to a degree straddled the class divide and has a foot in the camps of the bourgeoisie and the working class. The actual living experience of China in its evolution since 1949 is without precedent. Its differences with the Soviet Union’s evolution require us to acknowledge that it is not an exactly analogous social formation at this point.
93) The destruction and incremental dissolution of public ownership, centralized planning and the monopoly of foreign trade constitutes a historic setback for the Chinese working class. Its rights and interests have either been stripp"

But of course this does not to deter you from rushing to it's defence.
You mean hyperbole and "cause I said so" arguments? Yeah, that's really going to make me reconsider my position. :rolleyes:

Ah, opportunism.That might hold some water if you didn't show such an eagerness to parrot imperialist rhetoric.

☭The Revolution☭

28th June 2011, 17:06

*giggles at the situation in here getting out of control and scampers back to A Laughable Forum of Laughable People*

Crux

28th June 2011, 17:39

You mean hyperbole and "cause I said so" arguments? Yeah, that's really going to make me reconsider my position. :rolleyes:

That might hold some water if you didn't show such an eagerness to parrot imperialist rhetoric.
I am quoting from PSLs position on China. :laugh:

Actually whetever I am "parroting imperialist rhetoric" (what is "imperialist rhetoric"?) is completely irrelevant as to whetever your position on chona is opportunistic.

Queercommie Girl

28th June 2011, 18:21

God damn, I hate both thick-headed pseudo-Marcyite crude "anti-imperialists" and infantile narrow class reductionist ultra-leftists who deny imperialism exists.

Where is a genuine Leninist when you need him/her?

That's all I'm going to say on this topic for now.

☭The Revolution☭

28th June 2011, 20:48

manic expression

28th June 2011, 21:10

I am quoting from PSLs position on China.
But of course this does not to deter you from rushing to it's defence.

Context. The other white meat.

Actually whetever I am "parroting imperialist rhetoric" (what is "imperialist rhetoric"?) is completely irrelevant as to whetever your position on chona is opportunistic.
How is the PSL's position possibly opportunistic? You're opportunistic when you join the anti-PRC chorus whenever it's convenient.

ColonelCossack

28th June 2011, 21:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIavxnUHls

does this count?

Crux

29th June 2011, 01:41

But of course this does not to deter you from rushing to it's defence.

Context. The other white meat.

How is the PSL's position possibly opportunistic? You're opportunistic when you join the anti-PRC chorus whenever it's convenient.
Cute.

Yes, yes Chinaworker.info works underground in China out of convienience, of course! How is the PSL opportunistic? How about fig-leaf criticism of an anti-working class regime that ultimatly boils down to accusing ideological opponents of being "anti-PRC"?

RadioRaheem84

29th June 2011, 01:44

The world needs a superpower to rival the US and fund opposition to capitalism.

China as of now is not it. If the workers launch another revolution and gain control of the State, then we'll talk, and it would probably be game over for capitalism.

Princess Luna

29th June 2011, 05:00

At this point i think there is a much higher chance of a socialist revolution in the U.S. than in China, polls have shown support of capitalism in the U.S. in around 53% and dropping while in China its around 85% and doesn't seem to be rising or falling.