What is China?

[link5645]

This propably sounds like a stupid question, but earlier I was talking to my conductor. He knew I was reading a book about Communist history so he asked me where in the time line I was. I told him that I was reading about China and on came the lecture.

He started out by saying, "Ah China... Odd nation... Good food, but weird government... What I find interesting about them is that they still claim to be Communist after the fall of the USSR. So maybe workers work how they please and maybe everybody gets equal wages... I don't know. I've never been there. I honestly doubt that to be true though... They may be running socialism, but they are almost as capitalist as us!"

We of course went on to other things like comparing Mao to other Communist leaders, but that kind of got stuck on my mind. Long story short, I'm curious as to how many of you guys will think my conductor is nuts or perfectly sane or maybe just what your personal perception on China is and what the corrcet perception is.

[Tommy4ever]

China is a capitalist state.

Nothing socialist about it, indeed its capitalism and authoritarian government probably makes it worse than western capitalism.

But yes, the food is good.

[hatzel]

I'm sorry, but I just don't like the food...not one bit...

That said, I guess it's still up in the air (for some people) whether the Chinese penchant for executing people for various financial misdemeanors is a sign of just a seriously authoritarian centrally-planned socialist economy, and a means of protecting the people from the evil money-grabbers *cough* or whether it's just state capitalism at it's very very worse...

(Also I feel this thread might get serious hectic pretty fast if a few of our China-lovers and -haters get wind of it...)

[ColonelCossack]

There are two kinds of bourgeois state- liberal democracies and fascism. China is certainly not a liberal democracy, so the only other alternative is fascism. However, its not like Nazi fascism- in my view, it more of a placid, quiet kind of fascism than an in your face, dogmatically nationalist kind of Fascism. I dunno. It's weird...

[Tim Finnegan]

There are two kinds of bourgeois state- liberal democracies and fascism.
What about Imperial Germany? Bonapartist Spain? Parliamentarian England? Horthyist Hungary? History brims with what would appear to be exceptions to this rule.

(Edit: "Bonapartist France", not "Bonapartist Spain". Not sure how I managed that; best guess is that I was considering putting "Francoist Spain" on the list, but decided to skip that whole "was Franco a fascist?" debate, and in doing so got myself muddled.)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The best description I can think of for the Chinese model is "Centrally planned Capitalism"

Cossack-there are more than two kinds of bourgeois states. Fascism means more than just "Authoritarian Capitalism"

[ColonelCossack]

What about Imperial Germany? Bonapartist Spain? Parliamentarian England? Horthyist Hungary? History brims with what would appear to be exceptions to this rule.

I meant as a general rule- of course there are exceptions, and China is one of them. I suppose, instead of narrowing it down to liberal democracy and fascism, you could replace these with libertarian capitalism and authoritarian capitalism, with all bourgeois states somewhere between these.

[ColonelCossack]

Cossack-there are more than two kinds of bourgeois states. Fascism means more than just "Authoritarian Capitalism"

I see what you mean- there are many exceptions, china being one of them. Fascism is authoritarian and capitalist, but there are variations of authoritarianism and capitalism, so two authoritarian capitalist states can be very different- like Nazi Germany and China.

[Tim Finnegan]

I meant as a general rule- of course there are exceptions, and China is one of them. I suppose, instead of narrowing it down to liberal democracy and fascism, you could replace these with libertarian capitalism and authoritarian capitalism, with all bourgeois states somewhere between these.
Doesn't that rather gloss over the role of class and class struggle in determining the form and character of the state? How can you lump, say, Somoza and Mussolini together as "authoritarian" without departing from a Marxian analysis?

[Hebrew Hammer]

China has been on the road of capitalism for quite some time and needs to take a left turn. I believe that initially it was Socialist after the 1949 revolution but then slowly became state-capitalist primarily due to the reforms and revisionism of Deng Xiaoping which occurred after the death of Mao and the arrest and denunciation of the 'Gang of Four'. Would I call them fascist? No, I would call them state capitalist, to call them fascist I believe would be incorrect. That being said, I love their food.

[Tim Finnegan]

China has been on the road of capitalism for quite some time and needs to take a left turn. I believe that initially it was Socialist after the 1949 revolution but then slowly became state-capitalist primarily due to the reforms and revisionism of Deng Xiaoping which occurred after the death of Mao and the arrest and denunciation of the 'Gang of Four'.
How is it possible, in a Marxist understanding, to regress from socialism to capitalism? Transition between modes of production, when not imposed externally (i.e. through imperialism) can only occur as the resolution of the internal contradictions of the existing mode of production. What contradictions exist within socialism that could allow it to transition into a further mode of production, let alone in an historically regressive fashion?

[Jose Gracchus]

Because of REVISIONIST ROADER CORRUPTION LACK OF PRODUCTIVE FORCE BAD LINES AND SOVIET FASCISM AHHH....

I don't understand how contemporary MLs paper over what their brethren at the time claimed as a core conception of their politics. "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists", for example, seem to lack the courage in 2011 to commit, as THE CHAIRMAN did, to "SOVIET FASCISM" as a causal factor in the world communist movement's degeneration in the 1960s.

Call my a cynic, but its because its fucking embarrassing and retarded (read: bad PR for MLMism).

[Return to the Source]

China is a socialist country. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/)) (2 (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/class-struggle-and-a-socialist-market-economy/)) (3 (http://politicalaffairs.net/china-not-neocolonialist/)) (4 (http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2009/tiananmen-kelly.pdf)) I only wrote the first one.

[Blackburn]

I'm sorry, but I just don't like the food...not one bit...

Traditional Chinese dishes aren't like the Chinese take away in the west. It's a lot closer to natural ingredients. Chicken/Pork/Rice vegetables/soup etc. Fried Bean Curd if that's your thing.

Interestingly enough my first experience of eating traditional Chinese was at a friend's house. Family ran a Chinese take away but cooked different (healthier) food for themselves.

[Anarchrusty]

Another stupid question maybe, dunno, but at what stage did China stop being a socialist country and develop into whatever it is these days.
I know a little to enough about Moa's China, but I lost track after that.

About Moa, I dislike the oppressiveness of his regime, but on the other hand he really tried to steer his people into true socialist thought. That it didn't work out that way, is due to his strongwilled stubbornness about coercing the Chinese (people) while the truth is that when he would have given it loose hand, things would have turned out for the best. Revolutions work best when you let the PEOPLE decide. FACT!

[Tim Cornelis]

"Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless" -- Revleft website

As for your question, I think no matter how sincere those in power are it has to be the workers who make the revolution, not an elite. That's where it went wrong. The people have to steer themselves. And I read a quote from Castro I think here on revleft saying something like "good ideas don't need to be defended by the gun as they can persuade the masses".

[Jose Gracchus]

China is a socialist country. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/)) (2 (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/class-struggle-and-a-socialist-market-economy/)) (3 (http://politicalaffairs.net/china-not-neocolonialist/)) (4 (http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2009/tiananmen-kelly.pdf)) I only wrote the first one.

Still can't find time to defend it though.

[Anarchrusty]

Castro I think here on revleft saying something like "good ideas don't need to be defended by the gun as they can persuade the masses".


I really enjoyed that quote. I think I am on par with that thought. Off course, reality is not always like that and in that way I can understand people like Moa or Stalin, but I also think that is counterproductive in the end. People are not commodities, robots to be controlled by sheer will. You need to teach them what is good from wrong and they will automatically make the right decisions. It may take time though.
If (when ;) ) there is a revolution, it is up to us to give the masses the right thoughts and I pressume within one or two years they will on mass choose what is best for mankind.
I wonder though. Imagine there will be still counter revolutionaries. What to do with them. A couple of months ago I would have said banish them, but in case of a worldwide revolution (with no states nor borders) where do you leave them?

[ColonelCossack]

Doesn't that rather gloss over the role of class and class struggle in determining the form and character of the state? How can you lump, say, Somoza and Mussolini together as "authoritarian" without departing from a Marxian analysis?

yes, and I spoke about these big differences here:


I see what you mean- there are many exceptions, china being one of them. Fascism is authoritarian and capitalist, but there are variations of authoritarianism and capitalism, so two authoritarian capitalist states can be very different- like Nazi Germany and China.

[Tim Finnegan]

yes, and I spoke about these big differences here:
I'm talking about class character. Simply saying that "they can be very different" does nothing at all to address that.

[Kiev Communard]

China is a socialist country. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/)) (2 (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/class-struggle-and-a-socialist-market-economy/)) (3 (http://politicalaffairs.net/china-not-neocolonialist/)) (4 (http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2009/tiananmen-kelly.pdf)) I only wrote the first one.

Only if you conceive of "socialism" as "centralized State power" (as there is no longer even a State monopoly on means of production that Marxists-Leninists usually term "socialist" there). It is funny that you consider anarchists and syndicalists to be "petty-bourgeois" and "anti-communist", as your rather rude post in "Syndicalism" suggests, while defending generalized commodity production (i.e. capitalism) under the oversight of the Chinese Party-State as "socialist market economy" :rolleyes:.

[ColonelCossack]

I'm talking about class character. Simply saying that "they can be very different" does nothing at all to address that.

you do make a very good point- the nazis had the support of the aristocrats, while china has the support of the bourgeoisie, right? They're both authoritarian capitalists, but they come from different classes and have different class characters- which makes them very different.

[Tim Finnegan]

you do make a very good point- the nazis had the support of the aristocrats, while china has the support of the bourgeoisie, right? They're both authoritarian capitalists, but they come from different classes and have different class characters- which makes them very different.
Well, the Nazis were first and foremost a movement of the petty bourgeoisie- bonapartists- but details aside, yes, that's what I'm getting at. "Authoritarian capitalist" is a viable be a descriptive term, but, for Marxists, it's useless as taxonomy.

[ColonelCossack]

Well, the Nazis were first and foremost a movement of the petty bourgeoisie
Well, the petty-bourgeoisie and the aristocracy have both had similar roles since the onset of the industrial revolution- they have both been in danger of being "overpowered" by the industrial(?) bourgeoisie, thus being close to falling into the proletariat. As a result, they are both likely to be very reactionary and conservative, and side with similar people- i.e, the fascists. But you're right- that's beside the point. "Authoritarian capitalist" is too broad a term, because of the entirely different classes that each type of authoritarian capitalist can represent, so we need to narrow it down- which is why China is a little bit tricky to classify.

[Tomhet]

A major Capitalist power in which the working class suffers greatly..

[Tim Cornelis]

You need to teach them what is good from wrong and they will automatically make the right decisions. It may take time though.
If (when ;) ) there is a revolution, it is up to us to give the masses the right thoughts and I presume within one or two years they will on mass choose what is best for mankind.
I wonder though. Imagine there will be still counter revolutionaries. What to do with them. A couple of months ago I would have said banish them, but in case of a worldwide revolution (with no states nor borders) where do you leave them?

Well, there's a difference between teaching workers about worker struggle and revolutionary socialism and imposing 'socialism' on them, which in practice many self-proclaimed socialist elites have done.

After the victorious revolution we should just offer the counter-revolutionaries a part in society as equal members, or else do not associate with them, do not allow them to make us of communal services if they do not contribute to them.