China urges U.S. to ramp up austerity programs

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

NEW YORK/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the "good old days" of borrowing were over.

Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.

China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

After a week which saw $2.5 trillion wiped off global markets, the move deepened investors' concerns of an impending recession in the United States and over the euro zone crisis.

Finance ministers and central bankers of the Group of Seven major industrialized nations will confer by telephone later on Saturday or on Sunday, a senior European diplomatic source said.

The source said the credit rating downgrade had added a global dimension on top of the euro zone debt issue, raising the need for international coordination.

"The G7 will confer by telephone. It's not yet confirmed whether it will be in one stage or in two stages, tonight and tomorrow," the source said.

French Finance Minister Francois Baroin, who would chair such a meeting under France's G7 and G20 presidency, said it was too early to say whether there would be an early G7 gathering.

In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its "debt addiction" and "short sighted" political wrangling.

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," it said.

It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.

"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country," Xinhua said.

In Washington, President Barack Obama urged lawmakers on Saturday to set aside partisan politics after the debt battle, saying they must work to put the United States' fiscal house in order and refocus on stimulating its stagnant economy.

S&P blamed the downgrade in part on the political gridlock in Washington, saying politics was preventing the United States from addressing its deficit and debt problems.

Obama called on Congress to back measures to give tax relief to the middle class, extend jobless benefits and pass long-delayed international trade pacts.

"Both parties are going to have to work together on a larger plan to get our nation's finances in order," he said.

"In the long term, the health of our economy depends on it...in the short term, our urgent mission has to be getting this economy growing faster and creating jobs."

STAY COOL

In contrast to the Chinese criticism, France's Baroin said France had faith in the United States' ability to get out of this "difficult period."

Friday's U.S. unemployment numbers were better than expected and so things were heading in the right direction, he said.

"Therefore, one should not dramatise, one needs to remain cool-headed, one should look at the fundamentals," he told France's iTele.

While the impact of the rating cut on financial markets when they reopen on Monday may be modest because the decision was expected, the shift may have a long-term impact for U.S. standing in the world, the dollar's status, and the global financial system.

"I think even if it was half-expected, the consequence will be far reaching," said Ciaran O'Hagan, fixed income strategist at Societe Generale in Paris.

"It will weigh on secure assets. The bigger reaction will be on risky assets, including equities and on agencies (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) and states backed directly by the federal government."

But he added: "U.S. Treasuries will remain a benchmark. This is a ship which takes a long time to turn around."

Norbert Barthle, a budget expert for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives said the downgrade would certainly provoke further turbulence in markets.

"I'm not surprised about the U.S. rating downgrade, rather I am astonished that for weeks, international rating agencies have focused their attention on the European debt situation but not the American one. For a while, there have been clear worries about America's economic woes but also the fact the U.S. is heavily indebted."

NO EARLY ITALIAN ELECTION

In Europe, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Saturday ruled out calling early elections to stem market panic that has pounded Italian assets and forced his government to bring forward austerity measures.

Italy buckled on Friday to world pressure by pledging to bring forward cuts to balance the budget in 2013 in return for European Central Bank help with funding.

European policy makers are concerned that a debt emergency in the euro zone's third largest economy could completely overwhelm bailout mechanisms set up to help smaller troubled countries like Greece or Ireland.

Italy is due to go to the polls in 2013 but Berlusconi dismissed any suggestion of emulating Spain, where Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has called an early election to tackle the crisis.

"This has absolutely not been talked about," Berlusconi told reporters. "This has never been an option."

The European Union's top economic official praised Italy's decision to accelerate budget-balancing measures and structural economic reforms and said swift implementation was now crucial.

"I strongly support this announcement and call on the authorities to quickly translate it into concrete measures," European Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"This will help to boost potential growth, secure budgetary retrenchment and bolster market confidence," Rehn said.

The European Central Bank sources said the bank remains divided over whether to buy Italian government bonds but even some of those who favor the move say Italy should do more to front-load austerity measures.

Two sources said they expected ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet to hold a teleconference of the bank's policy-setting Governing Council over the weekend to discuss how to respond to turmoil in financial markets and Italy's latest measures.

China and Japan have called for coordinated action to avert a new worldwide financial crisis. India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters: "There is no need to unnecessarily press the panic button."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Our Socialist heroes, eh? :laugh:

I'm sure some will defend China and say they're destroying capitalism by doing this.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow, a developing nation telling the developed world what to do with the budget?

I never thought I would live to see the day.

The Beijing Consensus! But seriously, fuck the leaders in China, they've taken Dengist bullshit to a level where it can never be redeemed or defended by any respectable leftist.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Now that's international solidarity.

[Martin Blank]

Cue: Trot + ML @ SR -> L: "Fuck China"

[Lenina Rosenweg]

China does not have the political or military force necessary to enforce austerity on the US.In some ways this announcement is a delicious irony but it is ultimately nothing more than another weapon of a faction of the global bourgeois directed against the working class. F___ the Chinese ruling class, not China itself.

[Kiev Communard]

China does not have the political or military force necessary to enforce austerity on the US.In some ways this announcement is a delicious irony but it is ultimately nothing more than another weapon of a faction of the global bourgeois directed against the working class. F___ the Chinese ruling class, not China itself.

Basically the same can be said of the U.S. as well, as it is clear that now the U.S. labour aristocracy (i.e. the fabled "middle class") will be completely ruined and the U.S. financial capitalism is no longer able to prop up the relatively higher living standards for its wage slaves as a means of appeasement, so I think we should distinguish between the U.S. proletariat and its ruling class.

[RadioRaheem84]

F___ the Chinese ruling class, not China itself.

This should be obvious to every leftist.

To the media though, they might play this up as a nationalist debacle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Basically the same can be said of the U.S. as well, as it is clear that now the U.S. labour aristocracy (i.e. the fabled "middle class") will be completely ruined and the U.S. financial capitalism is no longer able to prop up the relatively higher living standards for its wage slaves as a means of appeasement, so I think we should distinguish between the U.S. proletariat and its ruling class.

On the other hand, too much pinning on this depression aspect of crisis theory has led to and continues to lead to popular resentment being channeled towards far-right politics. Revolutionary situations occur because popular expectations of immediate change for the better are dashed, not because of depression spirals.

[Q]

Cue: Trot + ML @ SR -> L: "Fuck China"

Why not be creative then, in the spirit of this glorious thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-arent-microstates-t159141/index.html?p=2197122#post2197122)?

I say China is actually taking the opportunity to further undermine the capitalist hegemon and, with it, the capitalist system itself. China can then stop pretending being capitalist and we'll have communism by the end of the year.

No but seriously, fuck China :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yeah, seriously, fuck China's rulers. Notice how they do want a cut in social programs but of course they do not want taxes on the rich, uhh I mean "job creators". This is more or less the view of the American "Tea Party". Of course this is probably because America's rich and major corporations are "job creators" in places like China, not the US. Basically, no more grants for students, pensions, health care for the elderly and poor, but more cheap manufacturing jobs in Chinese SEZs.

[Kiev Communard]

On the other hand, too much pinning on this depression aspect of crisis theory has led to and continues to lead to popular resentment being channeled towards far-right politics. Revolutionary situations occur because popular expectations of immediate change for the better are dashed, not because of depression spirals.

I totally agree. I was not actually trying to defend "depression-leads-to-revolution" thesis, though; I merely observed that the economic destabilisation will lead to social upheaval, whatever it contents may be.

[Martin Blank]

Why not be creative then, in the spirit of this glorious thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-arent-microstates-t159141/index.html?p=2197122#post2197122)?

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

Where you suggesting that Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists were anti-Chinese? I actually didn't quite understand your post myself.

And yes, it could be said that the glorious and correct CPC leadership has given up the concept of "socialism in one country" for "socialism in no country". They can gloat now but de-linking has its limits. China has a huge bubble economy which is bound to burst very soon.

[Martin Blank]

Where you suggesting that Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists were anti-Chinese? I actually didn't quite understand your post myself.

Cue: Trot + ML @ SR -> L: "Fuck China"

=

"Cue [pro-China] Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists at Stage Right, entering on the line: 'Fuck China'."

[Q]

Cue: Trot + ML @ SR -> L: "Fuck China"

=

"Cue [pro-China] Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists at Stage Right, entering on the line: 'Fuck China'."

Yeah, that's more or less what I made out of it.

[Teacher]

Can anyone find a link to the original Chinese article (in English)? I can't seem to find it.

[Psy]

China does not have the political or military force necessary to enforce austerity on the US.In some ways this announcement is a delicious irony but it is ultimately nothing more than another weapon of a faction of the global bourgeois directed against the working class. F___ the Chinese ruling class, not China itself.
China does have the political force as China is subsidizing the US economy as the US borrows huge sums of money from the Chinese ruling class. The US ruling class is suffering the worst stagnation the US has ever faced, what do you think will happen if the Chinese ruling class ever decides to stop investing in the US ruling class? Of course this will also slit the Chinese ruling class throat but would the US ruling class take the chance it is not a bluff?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What alternatives do the Chinese have though? In the past few years and past few months China has been "pushing its weight around" vis a vis the US but its along contours still determined by the US. Not sure how long this can last but if and when it unravels we could be in for a global shitstorm making the current Great Recession look like a blip.

The US-China confrontation, when it comes, will probably start as a sideshow about some seemingly minor dispute.

[manic expression]

So I'm wondering, would the PRC be congratulated by all our anti-PRC friends if they supported the US capitalist welfare system? Besides, let's not lose sight of the main point...

China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

I defy anyone here to argue against this.

[CHE with an AK]

China does not have the military force necessary
I wouldn't be so sure ...

v5QLZ4oj_6A


Dear Americans,

Start learning Mandarin.


http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/design/11174273/type/png/width/130/height/130

[Teacher]

A lot of that seems to be the interpretation of Reuters I would like to read the original article in context. Not saying they didn't call for austerity but it would be nice to read the original.

[Jose Gracchus]

Argue against it? I didn't realize it was for communists to argue how the world bourgeoisie can better manage the world currency system that services them. :rolleyes:

[Kiev Communard]

China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

I defy anyone here to argue against this.

Well, if you support the substitution of one financial capitalist centre by the other, albeit wrapped up in the red flag, there is nothing to argue with you about as with a revolutionary socialist. As with an opportunist - perhaps.

[praxis1966]

I think the pro-PRC v. anti-PRC debate over China calling for austerity measures is pretty ancillary to the real issue here. The real issue is what this says about the stability of the US economy and how that relates to global capitalism. If you know anything about world history, you know that there was enough interconnection of capitalist economies in the 1930s for one or two major industrialized nations to sink the world's economy. Imagine what it's going to be this time around, the age of globalization, if the American economy takes a dump the way I think it might...

[maskerade]

wait...there are people here who are pro-PRC/CPC?

[Kiev Communard]

I think the pro-PRC v. anti-PRC debate over China calling for austerity measures is pretty ancillary to the real issue here. The real issue is what this says about the stability of the US economy and how that relates to global capitalism. If you know anything about world history, you know that there was enough interconnection of capitalist economies in the 1930s for one or two major industrialized nations to sink the world's economy. Imagine what it's going to be this time around, the age of globalization, if the American economy takes a dump the way I think it might...

From my own post on some of the other forums:


The key question there is whether the dollar loses the status of global reserve currency (as the response of the Chinese central bank indicates, some of the other capitalist powers may begin contemplating the switch from dependence on the U.S. dollar to... something other?). If this happens, I would predict the major instability on the global scale, the potential collapse of some of the world's beleaguered economies (say, Spain or Italy, and most likely Greece), as well as the potential revolutionary events there. Today's return of indignados protesters to Madrid's Puerto des Sol Square (in defiance of the police and the government) shows the potential for it.

As for the potential for capital's recomposition, currently it seems unlikely without a major geopolitical upheaval and the change in hegemony structure. However, all plausible contenders to the mantle of the U.S. are too weak to substitute it alone, so the prospect of a large-scale global conflict (more Cold War-style than modelled on the WWs) cannot be excluded.

[praxis1966]

From my own post on some of the other forums:

Yeah, I think I saw that post and I pretty much agree with it... I didn't rep it there but I repped it here, lol.

[Crux]

wait...there are people here who are pro-PRC/CPC?
Well it's not called "ultraleft.org" is it? As the comrades say, getting rich is glorious.

[Crux]

So I'm wondering, would the PRC be congratulated by all our anti-PRC friends if they supported the US capitalist welfare system? Besides, let's not lose sight of the main point...

China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

I defy anyone here to argue against this.
China, the U.S biggest creditor. Oh those clever "communists" in the leadership of the CPC, destroying the U.S from within...or is it intra-imperialist rivalry and just a further sign of the ascent of china as a capitalist super-power?

[Psy]

Really disability would be more of regional power acting more autonomous of US imperialism for example Russia didn't ask for NATO's permission for ***** slapping Georgia and NATO didn't put up much resistance to it (basically NATO bark turned out to be much worse then its bite).

So we could see a world war but not one against any one nation, just a world war where the regional players make a mad dash to expand their regional power due to a global power vacuum.

[Psy]

China, the U.S biggest creditor. Oh those clever "communists" in the leadership of the CPC, destroying the U.S from within...or is it intra-imperialist rivalry and just a further sign of the ascent of china as a capitalist super-power?
Well it is obvious China never planned to use the debt as a leash on the USA as the only way it can "correct" the USA is to choke its own economy as the Chinese economy is dependent on US consumption.

[DaringMehring]

The bourgeoisie of all countries are allies in the exploitation of wage labor.

China and the USA are economically interdependent and their connection in exploitation is particularly close.

So one "national" bourgeoisie advises another "national" bourgeoisie that austerity would help them both exploit the workers. This can only be surprising for people with delusions about China not being capitalist, or the "national" bourgeoisie somehow being progressive, or other anti-socialist blunders.

[Psy]

The bourgeoisie of all countries are allies in the exploitation of wage labor.

China and the USA are economically interdependent and their connection in exploitation is particularly close.

So one "national" bourgeoisie advises another "national" bourgeoisie that austerity would help them both exploit the workers. This can only be surprising for people with delusions about China not being capitalist, or the "national" bourgeoisie somehow being progressive, or other anti-socialist blunders.

But the austerity won't help them exploit workers. It is true that is what the ruling class thinks will come from austerity but large bourgeois states has always been the #1 consumer, so where would the surplus production be sold if the state stopped consuming?

What China urging the USA to cut spending is a huge sign that the global capitalist market has developed a massive contradiction of capital. The ruling class can't solve over production without massive increases in the spending of bourgeois states yet that makes the debt load worse and they can't work on lowering their debt load without over production grinding markets to halt.

[DaringMehring]

But the austerity won't help them exploit workers. It is true that is what the ruling class thinks will come from austerity but large bourgeois states has always been the #1 consumer, so where would the surplus production be sold if the state stopped consuming?

What China urging the USA to cut spending is a huge sign that the global capitalist market has developed a massive contradiction of capital. The ruling class can't solve over production without massive increases in the spending of bourgeois states yet that makes the debt load worse and they can't work on lowering their debt load without over production grinding markets to halt.

You are certainly right, these developments are coming from capitalism's contradictions driving its collapse. They think the austerity will help them stabilize the economy by blunting the debt. Of course, with the declining rate of profit stemming from the constantly increasing organic composition of capital, there is no real solution. That doesn't stop them from playing their greedy game.

The bourgeoisie are just doing what they know best, grabbing for extra bucks and trying to protect their wealth and privilege.

[Psy]

You are certainly right, these developments are coming from capitalism's contradictions driving its collapse. They think the austerity will help them stabilize the economy by blunting the debt. Of course, with the declining rate of profit stemming from the constantly increasing organic composition of capital, there is no real solution. That doesn't stop them from playing their greedy game.

The bourgeoisie are just doing what they know best, grabbing for extra bucks and trying to protect their wealth and privilege.
The problem is markets are heading for a crash, for example American road authorities are already reporting huge short falls from the gas tax due to consumption falling of gas shrinking so they will have to make cuts to road maintenance just to constipate for loss of tax revenue. So contraction of markets will shrink government revenues so the US trying to pay down its debt is a exercise in futility since its revenues will shrink faster then it cuts spending.

[Teacher]

Found the original article. It does not call for cuts to social programs. The only reference to cutting social programs is recapping the opinion of S&P and the impact of further downgrades on the world economy.

The editorial has a lot of Chinese nationalism though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Link?

[Lynx]

Nobody is forcing China to be a creditor. They can choose to leave their US reserves liquid and earn zero interest.

[caramelpence]

So I'm wondering, would the PRC be congratulated by all our anti-PRC friends if they supported the US capitalist welfare system? Besides, let's not lose sight of the main point...

Why, incidentally, do you call people "anti-PRC" as if it's a good insult? I'm anti-PRC and proud of it, I want to see the Chinese state smashed, whereas you cheer on the same state when it seeks to crush protest movements.


China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

I defy anyone here to argue against this.

Okay. I don't celebrate rivalry and confrontation between imperialist powers and I don't want a world with any reserve currency at all, be it the US dollar or the Chinese renminbi. I want global communism.

[Susurrus]

Is it just me that finds it extremely ironic that the Republicans and the "People's Republic of China" ruled by a "communist" party are now both calling for the same thing?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't think it's ironic. I think it's capital in command.

[Susurrus]

I hope we hear some hilarious democratic attack ads accusing the Republicans of holding to the party line and being controlled by a Beijing conspiracy.

[S.Artesian]

Basically the same can be said of the U.S. as well, as it is clear that now the U.S. labour aristocracy (i.e. the fabled "middle class") will be completely ruined and the U.S. financial capitalism is no longer able to prop up the relatively higher living standards for its wage slaves as a means of appeasement, so I think we should distinguish between the U.S. proletariat and its ruling class.


What labor aristocracy? What "relatively higher living standards for its wage slaves"?

The portion of national income in the US claimed by wages in the US has declined pretty steadily over the past 30 years; that by profits increased. National wealth has been redistributed upwards, while the "middle" 40% have seen a sustained decline.

Real wages for US workers are below that for workers in many countries in Europe.

[Susurrus]

Real wages for US workers are below that for workers in many countries in Europe.

I believe it's in comparison to third world and poverty-stricken nations.

[Psy]

I don't think it's ironic. I think it's capital in command.
China from a exporter standpoint wants USA to greatly increase its spending to subsidize consumption of what China imports into the USA yet as a creditor they want the US to cut spending so they get better returns on holding US debt.

In other words what we are seeing is a huge contradiction of capital.

[Kiev Communard]

What labor aristocracy? What "relatively higher living standards for its wage slaves"?

Under "labour aristocracy in the U.S." I meant precisely those strata of so-called "professionals" (i.e. home-owning white-collar employees) that, while belonging to the working class in economic sense, identified with petty-bourgeoisie ("the middle-class") in a social sense, thus forming the basis for class-collaborationist tendencies within the proletariat. Naturally, these strata were hit hard by the present crisis, and their erosion will lead to the final shattering of "American Dream"-style political consensus that reigned since at least the 1950s. What will the concrete political outcome of this development be? I don't know, but it still represents a major shift in social arrangements.

[S.Artesian]

Under "labour aristocracy in the U.S." I meant precisely those strata of so-called "professionals" (i.e. home-owning white-collar employees) that, while belonging to the working class in economic sense, identified with petty-bourgeoisie ("the middle-class") in a social sense, thus forming the basis for class-collaborationist tendencies within the proletariat. Naturally, these strata were hit hard by the present crisis, and their erosion will lead to the final shattering of "American Dream"-style political consensus that reigned since at least the 1950s. What will the concrete political outcome of this development be? I don't know, but it still represents a major shift in social arrangements.


That's not generally what's referred to as the "labor aristocracy" in the US. The class-collaborationist tendencies in the US really do have a root in the craft and trade-union movement in the US [as opposed to industrial unionism]. For the last 30 or 40 years that material basis has been progressively, or regressively, compressed until it is pretty much confined to trade-union bureaucrats.

Overall, the US working class has been under assault for more than 30 years. Its changes living standards have gone from, during the best of times, nowhere, to, during most of those times, negative.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The class-collaborationist tendencies in the US really do have a root in the craft and trade-union movement in the US [as opposed to industrial unionism].

Um, historically trade unionism is synonymous with industrial unionism ("trade" referring to output). Both terms were interchangeable in contrasting with craft unionism.

[S.Artesian]

Um, historically trade unionism is synonymous with industrial unionism ("trade" referring to output). Both terms were interchangeable in contrasting with craft unionism.

Uh... historically you need to look a bit deeper into the history of US industrial union movement which was not organized around "trade"-- trade meaning job classification within the system. Both terms were made interchangeable to obscure the distinct history of each.

I recommend everyone read the book The Indispensable Enemy, about unionization in California, and the adoption of anti-Chinese, anti-Asian programs, policies, platforms by the craft and trade unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So you're saying that European and Soviet labour unions were never organized industrially?

"Its worst enemies are the pretended friends who encourage craft unions, and thus attempt to cut off the skilled trades from the rest of their class. They are trying to turn the most efficient division of the proletarian army against the great mass, against those whose position as unskilled workers makes them least capable of defense." (Kautsky) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm)

[S.Artesian]

So you're saying that European and Soviet labour unions were never organized industrially?

"Its worst enemies are the pretended friends who encourage craft unions, and thus attempt to cut off the skilled trades from the rest of their class. They are trying to turn the most efficient division of the proletarian army against the great mass, against those whose position as unskilled workers makes them least capable of defense." (Kautsky) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm)


No, pay attention. Comrade Kiev Communard was referring to the US was he not? He was referring to a US "labor aristocracy" was he not? That's what I was responding to.

Geez. I said "US" in each of my posts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, pay attention. Comrade Kiev Communard was referring to the US was he not? He was referring to a US "labor aristocracy" was he not? That's what I was responding to.

Geez. I said "US" in each of my posts.


Uh... historically you need to look a bit deeper into the history of US industrial union movement which was not organized around "trade"-- trade meaning job classification within the system. Both terms were made interchangeable to obscure the distinct history of each.

The way I see it, trade unionism proper in the US was never prevalent. Job classification within the system means craft unionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism).

[Obs]

So I'm wondering, would the PRC be congratulated by all our anti-PRC friends if they supported the US capitalist welfare system? Besides, let's not lose sight of the main point...

China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.

I defy anyone here to argue against this.
I'm sorry, I usually like you PSL guys, but this is ideologically bankrupt 'Marxism-Leninism' at its worst. You have literally no way to defend the actions of the Chinese state from a socialist, working class perspective, and it looks a lot like you realise this, but have to tow in with the party line, and therefore revert to bourgeois thinking. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent leftists having to sink as deep as this to defend their organisation's dogma.

[Crux]

I'm sorry, I usually like you PSL guys, but this is ideologically bankrupt 'Marxism-Leninism' at its worst. You have literally no way to defend the actions of the Chinese state from a socialist, working class perspective, and it looks a lot like you realise this, but have to tow in with the party line, and therefore revert to bourgeois thinking. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent leftists having to sink as deep as this to defend their organisation's dogma.
To be fair, Manic is usually worse than what the official PSL line, i e their position documents, while coming to the same conclusion are more critical than I've seen manic be.

[manic expression]

It seems people are getting hung up on the messenger and not the message. The PRC is telling the US that it's at fault for its present predicament. That's beyond doubt and I haven't seen anyone show otherwise.


I'm sorry, I usually like you PSL guys, but this is ideologically bankrupt 'Marxism-Leninism' at its worst. You have literally no way to defend the actions of the Chinese state from a socialist, working class perspective, and it looks a lot like you realise this, but have to tow in with the party line, and therefore revert to bourgeois thinking. It's sad to see otherwise intelligent leftists having to sink as deep as this to defend their organisation's dogma.
Well, it's a matter of disagreeing on a certain issue, and I respect where other comrades are coming from. I get a lot of flak over this, but IMO it's not the black-and-white, denounce-it-or-don't issue that some make it out to be.

Ours isn't, though, a position that defends all of the actions of the Chinese state, and it's a position that certainly criticizes most of those actions since the late 70's. The nuance is that it's more likely that progressive change will come through the CPC than against it owing to the rank-and-fire members of the party (who are overwhelmingly workers). I recognize the stellar work of the non-CPC groups that posters like Iseul can point out more readily than myself...but at the same time, it's still important for progressives to defend what's worth defending in the PRC, and in spite of all its reactionary changes in the last 40 years there remain progressive aspects in place. The contradiction of the PRC (a capitalist market instituted in a society with the political structure of a worker state) needs to be seen as that: a contradiction of opposing forces. To ignore either one is to miss the crux of the matter, I think.

[caramelpence]

It seems people are getting hung up on the messenger and not the message. The PRC is telling the US that it's at fault for its present predicament. That's beyond doubt and I haven't seen anyone show otherwise.

On the contrary, it's not "beyond doubt". I find that a key problem with so much of the discourse and rhetoric around the crisis, including the discourse of leftists who challenge the legitimacy of spending cuts by arguing that bankers and governments were responsible for the crisis, is that, by talking in terms of moral responsibility, we risk obscuring a crucial fact about capitalism and its tendency to produce crises - namely, that the inevitability of crisis under capitalism arises from the ways in which capitalism involves the products of human labour coming to exercise power over their producers and human society as a whole, such that individuals and societies are no longer in a position to exercise control over the economy, and become the objects of economic forces. This is different from saying that the crisis was the fault of bankers (or whoever) because that line of argument suggests that the crisis could have been avoided if only bankers had shown less greed or were less subjectively deficient in some other respect. The crisis is not the "fault" of the US, and not even the international ruling class, it is a product of the capitalist accumulation process itself, especially in a period of enhanced economic interdependence. The Chinese government's statement needs to be seen as what it is - not a nuanced analysis of economic crisis, but a rhetorical accusation that conveys sharpening antagonisms between two rival imperialist powers.


Ours isn't, though, a position that defends all of the actions of the Chinese state...

In what way does the PRC have the "political structure of a worker state"? What does it mean to say that progressive change is more likely to come from the base of the CPC rather than from outside of it? If you mean that grassroots CPC members are likely to be at the forefront of any revolutionary upsurge against the state and party leadership in the future then that's a vaguely plausible assertion, but something tells me you don't mean that at all and that you would never tolerate any kind of genuine challenge to the Chinese political system, because there were in fact sizable numbers of party members and state officials in the Tiananmen movement - and we all know that you celebrate the crushing of that movement. You can talk the talk about wanting to see progressive change in China but you're too blind to see that change will inevitably involve violent conflict between working people on the one hand and party-state apparatus on the other, as happened in 1989 and as happens through increasing "mass incidents" every year.

[manic expression]

This is different from saying that the crisis was the fault of bankers (or whoever) because that line of argument suggests that the crisis could have been avoided if only bankers had shown less greed or were less subjectively deficient in some other respect. The crisis is not the "fault" of the US, and not even the international ruling class, it is a product of the capitalist accumulation process itself, especially in a period of enhanced economic interdependence. The Chinese government's statement needs to be seen as what it is - not a nuanced analysis of economic crisis, but a rhetorical accusation that conveys sharpening antagonisms between two rival imperialist powers.
You're fading into the abstract instead of facing facts as you should. Of course it's the consequence of capitalism itself...but to not point out the culpability of the ruling class in the crisis is just silly. It's the responsibility of all leftists to point to the bourgeoisie as the source of these problems and to so oppose them. Anything else is mere economism.


In what way does the PRC have the "political structure of a worker state"? What does it mean to say that progressive change is more likely to come from the base of the CPC rather than from outside of it?
The PRC has the political structure that was established by the working-class Revolution of 1949. Being the product of such a working-class revolution, the PRC state revolves not around an empowered bourgeoisie but a vanguard party. To your second question, it means that the CPC contains a great deal of politically advanced workers, and under any circumstances no communist should disregard such a presence in any organization, much less one that holds the keys to state power. As I noted before, I recognize the non-CPC communist forces and they deserve our support, but I will not ignore the potential for progressive change that is inherent in the millions of working-class CPC members.


you're too blind to see that change will inevitably involve violent conflict between working people on the one hand and party-state apparatus on the other, as happened in 1989 and as happens through increasing "mass incidents" every year.
You're too blind to see what actually happened in 1989...but to point out your obvious lack of understanding would be to divert the thread off-topic, so I'll refer you to search for Tienanmen and see previous posts on the subject.

[Crux]

The PRC has the political structure that was established by the working-class Revolution of 1949. Being the product of such a working-class revolution, the PRC state revolves not around an empowered bourgeoisie but a vanguard party. To your second question, it means that the CPC contains a great deal of politically advanced workers, and under any circumstances no communist should disregard such a presence in any organization, much less one that holds the keys to state power. As I noted before, I recognize the non-CPC communist forces and they deserve our support, but I will not ignore the potential for progressive change that is inherent in the millions of working-class CPC members.
In what sense is the CPC today a vanguard party, if you do not mean as a vanguard of the capitalist class? Of course the CPC is a massive party, and no doubt there are still grassroots activists present, but it is very hard to ignore the rampant corruption, the princelings, the CEO's, the bureaucrat's, in short the leadership and defininig features of the CPC. The CPC cracks down on the left, regardless of whatever it is in the CPC or not.



You're too blind to see what actually happened in 1989...but to point out your obvious lack of understanding would be to divert the thread off-topic, so I'll refer you to search for Tienanmen and see previous posts on the subject.
Funny you should use that word, as I've posted eye-witness reports before. Needless to say it doesn't match up with the Chinese regime/PSL version. But yes this is off-topic.

[caramelpence]

You're fading into the abstract instead of facing facts as you should. Of course it's the consequence of capitalism itself...but to not point out the culpability of the ruling class in the crisis is just silly. It's the responsibility of all leftists to point to the bourgeoisie as the source of these problems and to so oppose them. Anything else is mere economism.

What does the "culpability" of the bourgeoisie mean in precise terms and what does it mean for communists to "point to" this culpability? If you say that the bourgeoisie or anyone else is responsible for a crisis then that suggests that there were also things that those actors could have done to avert the crisis (due to the close link between responsibility and agency in ordinary language) and that distorts the impossibility of subjecting capitalist accumulation to rational control - being clear on that point is important not so much because it's necessary to have a correct economic analysis in the abstract but because if you insist on allocating responsibility to the bourgeoisie, that logically points towards a reformist logic, in that it suggests that the current crisis can be overcome through reformist policies, like Keynesian demand management, and that future crises can be averted through similar reforms, like closer regulation of the banks. This is in fact the trap that many leftists have already fallen into - in arguing that the bourgeoisie are responsible through their greed, they have ended up essentially giving bourgeois governments advice on how to deal with the crisis in a more "humane" or "social" way. In a situation where the working class is still relatively passive (which means that for me, at least, the emergence of a revolutionary party is not an immediate possibility) the main task for communists is to articulate a clear analysis of the origins of the current crisis and its current trends, and that means emphasizing the alienation that is inherent in capitalist accumulation (and what that means for how profitability can be restored in crisis conditions) rather than lapsing into moral condemnation.


The PRC has the political structure that was established by the working-class Revolution of 1949. Being the product of such a working-class revolution, the PRC state revolves not around an empowered bourgeoisie but a vanguard party.

Firstly, you need to substantiate your description of 1949 as a "working class revolution". The CPC was overwhelmingly rooted in the peasantry by 1949 with the exception of its leadership, which was intellectual in its social composition, and the seizure of power in the final year of the civil war was based around conventional warfare combined with the negotiated transfer of cities by individual KMT generals to the CPC, rather than through the independent seizure of power by the working class. The immediate aftermath of the civil war was marked by extensive attempts by the CPC to restrain wage demands and struggles for improvements in working conditions and to mediate between workers and capitalists. Secondly, as for the formal political structure of the PRC, it is not clear what is working class about it. Other than provisions for the PLA and overseas Chinese, it is based around the appearance of territorial representation, in that political institutions correspond to territorial units like provinces and counties rather than being rooted in workplaces, and elections are tightly controlled through the rejection of potential candidates who do not receive the approval of party officials. This is not substantially different from other authoritarian regimes that have the appearance of parliamentary democracy, including Cuba, and it certainly has nothing in common with Soviet democracy. Simply saying that the PRC is a "vanguard party" is empty, you need to explain what this means and substantiate it.


To your second question, it means that the CPC contains a great deal of politically advanced workers, and under any circumstances no communist should disregard such a presence in any organization, much less one that holds the keys to state power. As I noted before, I recognize the non-CPC communist forces and they deserve our support, but I will not ignore the potential for progressive change that is inherent in the millions of working-class CPC members.

The British Labour Party and trade unions also contain many politically advanced workers, and no communist should disregard that fact either. But it is also true that no communist should ever argue that the Labour Party containing workers means that socialism can be won in Britain through changes in Labour Party policy or that British communists should be supportive of the government when the Labour Party is in power. The CPC may contain sizable numbers of workers and they may be politically advanced, but the party leadership is self-selecting and policy is tightly controlled rather than being the product of popular debate throughout the party. The current structure of the Chinese state is not one that allows for meaningful workers power. A future revolution in power will inevitably involve conflict between the vast Chinese working class and the CPC, especially when the CPC exercises direct control over the armed forces through the Central Military Commission.

Actually, let me ask you: would you ever support a serious political challenge to the CPC, through the formation of a new party in China, for example? Do you support workers and peasants in China today when they throw rocks at state security forces, when peasants are facing the clearing of their property to make way for industrial development, for example? I'm still trying to discover exactly how much you support the Chinese state.


You're too blind to see what actually happened in 1989...but to point out your obvious lack of understanding would be to divert the thread off-topic, so I'll refer you to search for Tienanmen and see previous posts on the subject.

I would similarly advise you to read over those threads, and then read a beginners' guide to Chinese politics and history.

[caramelpence]

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that, according to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/global/china-a-big-creditor-says-us-has-only-itself-to-blame.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) NYT article, the exact term that the Chinese government used to convey its support for austerity in the US was "bloated social welfare" programs. How progressive!

[Savage]

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that, according to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/global/china-a-big-creditor-says-us-has-only-itself-to-blame.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) NYT article, the exact term that the Chinese government used to convey its support for austerity in the US was "bloated social welfare" programs. How progressive!

The US is capitalist. China is criticizing the US government.... so obviously China is socialist.

[manic expression]

In what sense is the CPC today a vanguard party, if you do not mean as a vanguard of the capitalist class? Of course the CPC is a massive party, and no doubt there are still grassroots activists present, but it is very hard to ignore the rampant corruption, the princelings, the CEO's, the bureaucrat's, in short the leadership and defininig features of the CPC. The CPC cracks down on the left, regardless of whatever it is in the CPC or not.
The CPC is the vanguard party in the context of the PRC's political system. I don't think it's functioning as a true vanguard party today, but I think it has to potential to because of the grassroots you pointed out. And yes, most of the top layers of the party aren't going to be too happy about any progressive changes made...but that's where class struggle comes into play. I feel that the strength of the PRC working class can overcome that, and the CPC is one arena in which this struggle can be pushed forth and the PRC be reclaimed.


Funny you should use that word, as I've posted eye-witness reports before. Needless to say it doesn't match up with the Chinese regime/PSL version. But yes this is off-topic.I have as well...I suppose we can let our previous posts on the subject speak for themselves.


What does the "culpability" of the bourgeoisie mean in precise terms and what does it mean for communists to "point to" this culpability?
It means capitalists commit crimes against workers and for communists to point to it means calling a spade a spade.


Firstly, you need to substantiate your description of 1949 as a "working class revolution".If you don't think the Chinese Revolution was a working-class revolution then there's no real point in discussing it with you anyway. If you denounce the PRC in 1950 or 1990, the changes between those points have no bearing on your analysis.


The British Labour Party and trade unions also contain many politically advanced workers, and no communist should disregard that fact either. But it is also true that no communist should ever argue that the Labour Party containing workers means that socialism can be won in Britain through changes in Labour Party policyThe Labour Party has never been a revolutionary vanguard party in practice or in function. The CPC differs on both counts. Labour, in addition, does not hold de jure control over the entirety of British government, as is the case with the CPC and PRC.


I would similarly advise you to read over those threads, and then read a beginners' guide to Chinese politics and history.I'm sure your "Fair and Balanced" imperialist version of Tienanmen is all the guide I need. Just make sure you keep ignoring what happened and believe what the capitalist press tells you, and you'll be all set.


Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that, according to this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/business/global/china-a-big-creditor-says-us-has-only-itself-to-blame.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) NYT article, the exact term that the Chinese government used to convey its support for austerity in the US was "bloated social welfare" programs. How progressive!So if the PRC said "yes, the US welfare state is swell as heck"...you'd support them? No? How consistent!

[Paul Cockshott]

the drop in the credit rating is not important to the us, it can print dollars to buy its debt.

[Crux]

The CPC is the vanguard party in the context of the PRC's political system. I don't think it's functioning as a true vanguard party today, but I think it has to potential to because of the grassroots you pointed out. And yes, most of the top layers of the party aren't going to be too happy about any progressive changes made...but that's where class struggle comes into play. I feel that the strength of the PRC working class can overcome that, and the CPC is one arena in which this struggle can be pushed forth and the PRC be reclaimed.
Only that CPC activist that have taken part in the class-struggle have quickly found themselfes on the wrong side of a prison door.


It means capitalists commit crimes against workers and for communists to point to it means calling a spade a spade.Indeed, but what does that have to do with the chinese regime?



I'm sure your "Fair and Balanced" imperialist version of Tienanmen is all the guide I need. Just make sure you keep ignoring what happened and believe what the capitalist press tells you, and you'll be all set.
That it was a liberal pro-democratic pro-west student movment? I thought that was your view too. So yeah you keep believing the capitalist press.


So if the PRC said "yes, the US welfare state is swell as heck"...you'd support them? No? How consistent!Oh, sophistry clumsily attempted to pass off as an "argument". Cute.

[Thirsty Crow]

So if the PRC said "yes, the US welfare state is swell as heck"...you'd support them? No? How consistent!
The issue is not one of support, but rather of that statement being very indicative of the structure and function of the state apparatuses in Chinese society.
And guess what, these apparatuses are structured upon the capitalist relations of production which underpin the development of the whole of the society in China.
To expect that any kind of a revolutionary momentum is to be expected to come from within the structure in question is pure and simple dogmatism of the worst sort (in that it equates single party rule with prospects for working class power, ignoring the social basis of power of the party and the structure of the state, as well as its relation to the party).

[caramelpence]

It means capitalists commit crimes against workers and for communists to point to it means calling a spade a spade.

What do you mean by "crimes"? Marx's critique of capitalism has nothing to do with capitalists committing crimes, be it in a strictly legal sense or according to some external moral standard. His critique is concerned with the immanent processes of capitalist accumulation and the forms of resistance against alienated labour that are generated by those processes. It is concerned with capital as a social relation rather than with the subjective deficiencies and wrongdoings of individual capitalists.


If you don't think the Chinese Revolution was a working-class revolution then there's no real point in discussing it with you anyway.

It is only pointless if you don't want to have an argument and you can't support your assertion. I gave you evidence behind my view that the Chinese Revolution was not a working class revolution according to any sensible definition of the term, and so it would be nice if you could give some explanation as to why you believe that the working class did in fact take power in 1949.


If you denounce the PRC in 1950 or 1990, the changes between those points have no bearing on your analysis.

I don't "denounce" anyone because it makes no real difference what I say, and you're naive if you think that the PSL's statements of support for the PRC make any difference to anyone either. As I've made clear to you before, I don't believe the role of communists is to do "outreach" (as you put it) or otherwise conduct a marketing campaign, our role should be to clarify immanent struggles and trends. What I do believe in relation to China is that at no point over its existence has the PRC ever been a positive example for communists, in terms of the kind of society we should envisage. I identify with the workers who have struggled against the Chinese state at every point throughout the PRC's history.


The Labour Party has never been a revolutionary vanguard party in practice or in function

You haven't explained what "a revolutionary vanguard party" means. At the moment, it's just an empty slogan. You also haven't given real content to what you mean when you say that progressive change has to take place within the CPC and you haven't answered the questions I posed in my last post. Do you think that progressive change can only take place within the PRC through peaceful means, through changes in the personal composition of the Standing Committee of the Politburo and changes in the party's current policy program? Or do you accept that Chinese workers might need to overthrow the CPC and its state through violent means during the course of major social upheaval, and would you support them in their attempts to do so? Do you deny that significant numbers of party members and state officials were present at Tiananmen and have been involved in subsequent struggles against the state, only to be faced with repression every time? Doesn't this say anything to you about the choices that party members are likely to face as struggles develop, in terms of it being necessary to choose between loyalty to the party and supporting the efforts of the workers to defend themselves against state attack?


So if the PRC said "yes, the US welfare state is swell as heck"...you'd support them? No? How consistent!

What is actually supposed to be inconsistent here? I don't view the PRC as a capitalist society because the government has just called for the US to enhance austerity programs, I simply view its statement as evidence that the PRC and the US are witnessing increasing antagonisms. What makes the PRC capitalist is that it is a society regulated by the law of value and characterized by wage-labour. That's why I call for the overthrow of the CPC and the state it closely controls.

[manic expression]

Only that CPC activist that have taken part in the class-struggle have quickly found themselfes on the wrong side of a prison door.
Not all of them, no. What's your point? Class struggle brings opposition...is this supposed to be some new revelation to us?


Indeed, but what does that have to do with the chinese regime?The PRC is blaming the US bourgeoisie for the economic crisis it created.

...and the anti-China posters are still trying to bend over backwards to condemn them for it.


That it was a liberal pro-democratic pro-west student movment? I thought that was your view too. So yeah you keep believing the capitalist press.Well, they got that part right, for the most part...not so much the insane invention of some "massacre" that never happened.


Oh, sophistry clumsily attempted to pass off as an "argument". Cute.Pointing out inconsistency is just that.


The issue is not one of support, but rather of that statement being very indicative of the structure and function of the state apparatuses in Chinese society.

And guess what, these apparatuses are structured upon the capitalist relations of production which underpin the development of the whole of the society in China.

To expect that any kind of a revolutionary momentum is to be expected to come from within the structure in question is pure and simple dogmatism of the worst sort (in that it equates single party rule with prospects for working class power, ignoring the social basis of power of the party and the structure of the state, as well as its relation to the party).
The state apparatus of the PRC is not borne of capitalist relations. It exists in contradiction to them.

I understand that you want to condemn China because there is a capitalist market there. It's tempting. But remember, you are condemning China on abstract principle, which ignores the reality of the matter. The mere fact that you think the PRC state is a product of capitalist relations shows that your math is fundamentally wrong, which leads you to discount progressive aspects of the PRC.


What do you mean by "crimes"?
So we're supposed to replace this...

"If you tremble with indignity at every injustice, you are a comrade of mine."

With this...

"His critique is concerned with the immanent processes of capitalist accumulation and the forms of resistance against alienated labour that are generated by those processes. It is concerned with capital as a social relation rather than with the subjective deficiencies and wrongdoings of individual capitalists."

Gosh...I can't believe your tendency has never been relevant to revolutionary struggle.


It is only pointless if you don't want to have an argument and you can't support your assertion. I gave you evidence behind my view that the Chinese Revolution was not a working class revolution according to any sensible definition of the term, and so it would be nice if you could give some explanation as to why you believe that the working class did in fact take power in 1949.No, it's pointless if you deny that the PRC was ever a working-class society. Your "evidence" is that the CPC had strong support among the peasantry, used conventional warfare and engaged in negotiation (:laugh:). If you didn't notice, that's the most absurd collection of arguments one could possibly expect. Therefore, it stands to reason that you're disinterested in discussing the material aspects of such a society because you can't even properly distinguish what it once was.


I don't "denounce" anyone because it makes no real difference what I say, and you're naive if you think that the PSL's statements of support for the PRC make any difference to anyone either. As I've made clear to you before, I don't believe the role of communists is to do "outreach"Apparently it makes a difference to a few people...

Anyway, if you don't believe communists should reach out to workers, try to spread revolutionary politics...then why even pretend to be part of the movement?


You haven't explained what "a revolutionary vanguard party" means.A vanguard party is the organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers into a disciplined party, which is to lead the class struggle of the working class.


What is actually supposed to be inconsistent here?You're bashing the PRC for criticizing the US welfare state, and yet if that position were reversed you'd bash the PRC anyway. Yours is entirely an empty point, and it speaks to the dearth of political substance behind your general argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

The state apparatus of the PRC is not borne of capitalist relations. It exists in contradiction to them.That's a big statement. An unsubstantiated statement, also, since you didn't show just how does the antagonism between the political structure and the core capitalist relations of production function.

So, how would a supposedly proletarian structure of political power enable the existence and class domination of those that appropriate the means of production as private property and still remain the political expression of the supposedly primary power base located in the working class?

It seems that you're juggling with blatant contradictions here (not "contradictions" rooted in the social organization of labour)


I understand that you want to condemn China because there is a capitalist market there. It's tempting. But remember, you are condemning China on abstract principle, which ignores the reality of the matter. The mere fact that you think the PRC state is a product of capitalist relations shows that your math is fundamentally wrong, which leads you to discount progressive aspects of the PRC.
So, to condemn a state apparatus that enables, protects and justifies capitalist relations of production - or mere existence of the capitalist class - is to make an assessment "on abstract principle"? Opposition to private property is an abstract principle for you? Well, that's telling.

Also, your yet again juggling with buzzwords such as "reality of the matter" without exposing this reality. Show me this reality of the matter, and show me just how the party-state apparatus in China functions towards the aim of eradicating capitalist relations of production.

Also, the fact that you would choose to speak of "progressive aspects" of the Chinese state does not tell anything of relevance, since one can easily and correctly conclude that certain capitalist states held "progressive aspects".

[S.Artesian]

the drop in the credit rating is not important to the us, it can print dollars to buy its debt.

We've heard that before, in various iterations. Doesn't quite work that way. It isn't like the Fed [which was given the authority over currency production] just says, "Fuck it. We'll just print up more dollars, give them to China, Japan, UK, and Russia [I think those are the 4 largest holders of US Treasury instruments] and 'voila!' problem solved."

Didn't work that way when the Fed essentially pumped money into the world's economy in 2008-2009 with its open-ended currency swaps; didn't work that way with "quantitative easing;" didn't work that when the Fed and the Treasury deployed TARP, PPIP, TALF, PDCF, the whole list of special investment vehicles etc.

Nothing was resolved. The inflation of the money base never made it into the economy, but sat in the banks as the banks' own reserves, own capital, all dressed up with nowhere to go.

What counts of course is not the specific action of S&P in reducing the credit-rating, but the overall trend of the global economy-- the global purchasing managers index, used to assess future industrial expansion, is right at the "no growth" mark; Brazil-- the "pre-China" China-- is rolling out protectionist programs specifically aimed at China.

Profit margins for key sectors [semiconductors, mining, etc] are declining.

Printing money doesn't work when the profitability of value production is deteriorating.

[S.Artesian]

Here's the real reason why the credit-downgrade in and of itself is not the issue. From today's Wall Street Journal Online:


NEW YORK—The U.S. rating downgrade barely put a dent on the allure of Treasurys as a safe haven. Bond prices rallied as the news added to worries about the global economic outlook, pushing investors out of risky assets and seeking safety in U.S. government debt.
The price move underlines the dilemma confronting global investors from the Chinese central bank to pension funds and Japanese housewives: There are few alternative safe-haven assets out there that can match the depth and liquidity of the Treasury market, which has more than $9.3 trillion debt outstanding.

[caramelpence]

So we're supposed to replace this...

"If you tremble with indignity at every injustice, you are a comrade of mine."...

Why is there a need to replace a particular quote from Che Guevara with anything? What's important is not the catchiness of a particular soundbite but whether communists can pose an immanent critique of capitalism. I feel that you're confirming what I've identified on multiple occasions and across several discussions - namely, that you see communism as a marketing project, in that your foremost concern is to put forward propaganda and arguments that are aesthetically appealing, regardless of whether they actually capture capitalism's fundamental laws of motion. My concern is different, in that I view the revolutionary party as a historic product rather than something that can be proclaimed into being and developed through individual acts of recruitment, and I also believe that the overthrow of capitalism is something immanent in the accumulation process itself, rather than something that the working class needs to be persuaded to carry out by means of moral appeals and soundbites. I believe that the role of communists is to participate in immanent forms of resistance and to clarify immanent trends, rather than to see themselves as members of an organization that intervenes in the class from without. I don't expect to be able to convince you of the problems with your activist and substitutionist approach but I do feel these differences need to be spelt out explicitly.


Your "evidence" is that the CPC had strong support among the peasantry, used conventional warfare and engaged in negotiation...

What I was trying to emphasize is that the CPC underwent a fundamental change over the course of its existence. By the end of the Sino-Japanese War the party was totally divorced from its initial base in the factories and cities, in that the party had suffered an enormous decline in membership in the immediate aftermath of the April 1927 coup and there was hardly any personal continuity between the membership of the party during the 1925-27 period (during which the party had expanded beyond its initial base in the intelligentsia and gained real roots amongst the workers of Shanghai and Canton, above all after the May 30th Movement) and the membership that the party had acquired during the Yenan period, at least outside of the core leadership. This change was linked to the transformation of the party into a party-army and Mao's articulation of a nationalist conception of the tasks of the Chinese Revolution. What this meant during the civil war is that the party found itself without an urban base, in that it was returning to the cities for the first time in two decades, and the final victory of the CPC did not take place through the creation of autonomous institutions by the Chinese working class, like Soviets. The creation of these institutions and their unification to form a new kind of state is the distinctive mark of a socialist revolution, from Russia to May 1968, but China did not involve this process, and instead the party carried its rhetorical emphasis on class collaboration into practice by mediating economic struggles and seeking to placate individual members of the so-called national bourgeoisie, especially when it was assumed that they would otherwise leave for Hong Kong and Taiwan. As I pointed out in one of my previous post, the eventual formal structure of the PRC was based around territorial representation, combined with representation for the PLA and overseas Chinese, as well as the Chinese People's Political Consultative Congress, which exists to this day and is designed to give a guaranteed voice to parties other than the CPC as well as individual figures, which, in the aftermath of 1949, included important capitalists.

That's why I asked you to explain why you think the Chinese Revolution was a working-class revolution and why the PRC has ever been a working-class society, whatever those terms mean. You have never yet made any of the clarifications I've requested, such as what progressive change coming from within the CPC means in concrete terms, and whether you recognize the participation of party members and state officials in the Tiananmen protests.


Anyway, if you don't believe communists should reach out to workers, try to spread revolutionary politics...then why even pretend to be part of the movement?

What do you mean by "the movement"? In most countries there is not really a working-class movement to speak of because the working class remains relatively passive. My main concern is that communists should not consider themselves an agent that is separate from the class as a whole, and that is precisely what you do by saying that the goal of communists is to conduct "outreach", as if you're some kind of cultist or marketing executive.


A vanguard party is the organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers into a disciplined party, which is to lead the class struggle of the working class.

In what way has the CPC ever led "the class struggle of the working class" across the history of the PRC, and especially since 1978?


You're bashing the PRC for criticizing the US welfare state, and yet if that position were reversed you'd bash the PRC anyway. Yours is entirely an empty point, and it speaks to the dearth of political substance behind your general argument.

I don't believe that the PRC is capitalist because of the comments it makes in official statements, those comments simply reflect the underlying reality of the CPC's capitalist social relations, and especially sharpening interimperialist antagonisms. If the PRC bizarrely praised the US's welfare system, I would be surprised, and I would probably still criticize the PRC on those grounds because the US welfare system is not worthy of admiration, but at the end of the day the basis of my criticism of the PRC is not the comments that the government makes in the form of newspaper articles, it is the social relations that exist in the PRC, based as they are on commodity production, the law of value, and wage-labour.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You're bashing the PRC for criticizing the US welfare state, and yet if that position were reversed you'd bash the PRC anyway. Yours is entirely an empty point, and it speaks to the dearth of political substance behind your general argument.

It's not an empty point. If the USA were to cut its "Bloated welfare state", we would see millions of poor and minorities kicked off of Medicaid, we would see a drastic drop in financial aid for students and financing for local education programs, we would see seniors needing to tighten their belt as the US government raids social security for spare change, and we would see many other federal programs dry up.

That's serious shit, and it's all serious shit which I thought that the PSL opposed. I didn't realize the PSL was a pro-austerity political party! Now, maybe you'd have an argument if the PRC said "The USA should convert to a Socialist economic model, default on its loans and liberate its working class", but they didn't ask for that. They asked for austerity measures. The Communist Party of the USA has a more progressive position on this than the CCP.


A vanguard party is the organization of the most politically advanced and militant workers into a disciplined party, which is to lead the class struggle of the working class.

If the CCP is really politically advanced and made up of militant workers, then it isn't very disciplined whatsoever. Or, its "discipline" consists in arresting workers, ethnic minorities and others who protest I suppose. It certainly is not led by militant workers, and it does not act in the interests of militant workers, so either (1) The nature of the CCP is not what you think it is in terms of its ideological or class constitution, or (2) the party lacks the discipline you're talking about.

[Psy]

the drop in the credit rating is not important to the us, it can print dollars to buy its debt.
Not it can't because printing dollars simply spreads the value of the dollar over more dollars that would mean it would cost more for the US to import commodities like oil epically if OPEC responds to a falling US dollar by dropping US dollars and demands all oil be traded in another currency that has been debated in OPEC for over a decade, if OPEC drops US dollar on top of what the US prints we would see a flood of US dollars hit the market as every nation on Earth tries to sell their US dollar reserves all at once to buy the new reserve currency.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The PRC has the political structure that was established by the working-class Revolution of 1949

“...the proletariat played a negligible role in the last and decisive phase of the revolution. Neither major strikes nor urban uprisings paved the way for the Red Army … There were very few workers in the triumphant Red Army; it was composed essentially of peasants and officered by other peasants and intellectuals.” - Origins of the Chinese Revolution, 1915-1949 by Lucien Bianco, pp. 83-84

[S.Artesian]

It's not an empty point. If the USA were to cut its "Bloated welfare state", we would see millions of poor and minorities kicked off of Medicaid, we would see a drastic drop in financial aid for students and financing for local education programs, we would see seniors needing to tighten their belt as the US government raids social security for spare change, and we would see many other federal programs dry up.

That's serious shit, and it's all serious shit which I thought that the PSL opposed. I didn't realize the PSL was a pro-austerity political party! Now, maybe you'd have an argument if the PRC said "The USA should convert to a Socialist economic model, default on its loans and liberate its working class", but they didn't ask for that. They asked for austerity measures. The Communist Party of the USA has a more progressive position on this than the CCP.

We're going to see all that shit, the cuts, the drops, etc. anyway, no matter who says what. The Chinese official who spoke those words was simply proving his loyalty to the class of bankers who think it's wonderful when they get bailed out, but only when others have to pay.

As for this mythology of a "more progressive position" by the CPUSA.... really give us a break-- that's like saying... wait a minute, not "like," it is saying that Obama is "more progressive" than Kantor; that Pelosi is "more progressive" than Palin when the fact of the matter that the shared class interests of Obama, Kantor, Pelosi, Palin makes such distinctions meaningless when the issue is... as the issue really is... protecting capitalism at the expense of the workers; and protecting capitalism is always done at the expense of the workers.

[manic expression]

Why is there a need to replace a particular quote from Che Guevara with anything?
You tell me. You're the one who thinks that the only appropriate way to illustrate capitalism is with the driest, most economist terms possible.


What I was trying to emphasize is that the CPC underwent a fundamental change over the course of its existence. By the end of the Sino-Japanese War the party was totally divorced from its initial base in the factories and cities,
...because they had to carry out a guerrilla war. Revolutions require flexibility, and the CPC was right in observing this basic Marxist principle.


This change was linked to the transformation of the party into a party-army and Mao's articulation of a nationalist conception of the tasks of the Chinese Revolution. What this meant during the civil war is that the party found itself without an urban base, in that it was returning to the cities for the first time in two decades, and the final victory of the CPC did not take place through the creation of autonomous institutions by the Chinese working class, like Soviets.
That transformation was made eminently necessary by the reactionary attacks against the CPC. Blaming the workers' vanguard for not sitting in urban centers during various phases of guerrilla warfare (something they were apparently supposed to do out of principle) is ridiculous.


That's why I asked you to explain why you think the Chinese Revolution was a working-class revolution and why the PRC has ever been a working-class society, whatever those terms mean. You have never yet made any of the clarifications I've requested, such as what progressive change coming from within the CPC means in concrete terms, and whether you recognize the participation of party members and state officials in the Tiananmen protests.
What you're failing to see is that none of that matters if you refuse to admit that there was a working-class revolution in China. It's a point of disagreement that we're unlikely going to bridge.

But regardless, here (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12205&news_iv_ctrl=1261) and here (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/04/25/socialism-3-0-in-china/2/). Those are a good start, I think.


What do you mean by "the movement"? In most countries there is not really a working-class movement to speak of because the working class remains relatively passive. My main concern is that communists should not consider themselves an agent that is separate from the class as a whole, and that is precisely what you do by saying that the goal of communists is to conduct "outreach", as if you're some kind of cultist or marketing executive.
More economism. The movement is the socialist movement...it's revolutionaries and their allies. That certainly exists in most countries.

More to the point, though, you actually try to convince yourself that reaching out to fellow workers means that you're "an agent that is separate from the class"...even though it doesn't mean that at all, the assertion is simply a political safety blanket for those who don't have the willingness or ability to reach workers with a revolutionary platform.

Ounces and tons...which one do you prefer?


In what way has the CPC ever led "the class struggle of the working class" across the history of the PRC, and especially since 1978?
Since 1978 it has abrogated its responsibility in that regard more and more, to the point in which it's no longer acting as a real vanguard party (as I noted). Before that point, the CPC was at the forefront of working-class struggle: the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward (terribly miscalculated, sure, but still part of socialist construction), the defeat of the Kuomindang, the defeat of Japanese imperialism, etc.


I don't believe that the PRC is capitalist because of the comments it makes in official statements, those comments simply reflect the underlying reality of the CPC's capitalist social relations,
Answer the question directly: if the position were reversed, would you still criticize the PRC for it?

[manic expression]

It's not an empty point. If the USA were to cut its "Bloated welfare state", we would see millions of poor and minorities kicked off of Medicaid, we would see a drastic drop in financial aid for students and financing for local education programs, we would see seniors needing to tighten their belt as the US government raids social security for spare change, and we would see many other federal programs dry up.

That's serious shit, and it's all serious shit which I thought that the PSL opposed. I didn't realize the PSL was a pro-austerity political party! Now, maybe you'd have an argument if the PRC said "The USA should convert to a Socialist economic model, default on its loans and liberate its working class", but they didn't ask for that. They asked for austerity measures. The Communist Party of the USA has a more progressive position on this than the CCP.
Hey, baby einstein, I didn't say I agreed with what the PRC said here...I said that if the position of this official were reversed, you'd more than likely be on your high horse bashing the PRC for supporting the US capitalist state that so nakedly oppresses workers. Deny it or don't, but at least read what I write next time.


If the CCP is really politically advanced and made up of militant workers, then it isn't very disciplined whatsoever. Or, its "discipline" consists in arresting workers, ethnic minorities and others who protest I suppose. It certainly is not led by militant workers, and it does not act in the interests of militant workers, so either (1) The nature of the CCP is not what you think it is in terms of its ideological or class constitution, or (2) the party lacks the discipline you're talking about.
Or, and just bear with me for a second, maybe I already said that I don't think the CPC is presently functioning as a real vanguard party.


“...the proletariat played a negligible role in the last and decisive phase of the revolution. Neither major strikes nor urban uprisings paved the way for the Red Army … There were very few workers in the triumphant Red Army; it was composed essentially of peasants and officered by other peasants and intellectuals.” - Origins of the Chinese Revolution, 1915-1949 by Lucien Bianco, pp. 83-84
You could say very much the same thing about the Red Army in Russia.

[danyboy27]

I personally think its all a scheme to sell a lot of riot gear to the U.S for the coming years.

[caramelpence]

You tell me. You're the one who thinks that the only appropriate way to illustrate capitalism is with the driest, most economist terms possible.

The most appropriate way to understand capitalism is the way that most adequately grasps its underlying laws of motion. I also don't understand what you mean by "economism", as you seem to be using that term without any reference to its historic meaning, and the ways it is normally used. I am not saying that the working class should limit itself only to economic struggles, or that such struggles inevitably and naturally grow over into political struggles, which is normally what economism means.


...because they had to carry out a guerrilla war. Revolutions require flexibility, and the CPC was right in observing this basic Marxist principle.

The CPC's move into the countryside was explicable, I don't think anyone would deny that. It was also made necessary by the failure of Stalin's policy in the Comintern. But my point is that the long-term rupture between the party and the working class had long-term implications for the ability and willingness of the party to carry out a socialist revolution in China. If you accept that the final victory of the CPC occurred through conventional warfare after a long period in the countryside rather than through the creation of autonomous institutions by the working class (and I assume you do accept this as an accurate characterization of history, based on what you've said) then the only way you can also argue that the working class took power in 1949 is if you have an idealist and substitutionist conception of socialist revolution in which the working class is capable of being represented and replaced by a party that has the right ideological outlook and is sufficiently disciplined. That line of argument makes sense within the context of Maoist rhetoric because a major feature of Mao's thought is precisely a more ideological understanding of class that bases class labels on political outlook rather than social relations, but it also entails a move away from Marx's own notion of working-class self-emancipation, which is based on the working class as an actual social force transforming from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself through autonomous political action. It also carries with it the implication that socialism can be introduced by any political agent, including through a coup, and that the agency and involvement of the working class is effectively irrelevant.

At this point I'm actually trying to just get a clear idea of what you are trying to argue. If we both accept that the working class as a social force was not central to the Chinese Revolution, then why exactly do you describe that revolution as working-class or socialist or whatever? Is it because you believe that the character of a revolution depends on the ideology of a party, regardless of its social composition and the involvement (or lack thereof) or concrete social forces?


What transformation was made eminently necessary by the reactionary attacks against the CPC. Blaming the workers' vanguard for not sitting in urban centers during various phases of guerrilla warfare

So if you accept that the CPC was forced into the countryside, on what grounds did it remain "the workers' vanguard"? This is especially true when we consider that there were non-CPC communists in China, especially China's Trotskyists, amongst the most numerous and significant in the Fourth International, who believed it was possible to re-establish a revolutionary trend in China's cities through involvement in immediate defensive struggles during the Nanjing Decade.


What you're failing to see is that none of that matters if you refuse to admit that there was a working-class revolution in China. It's a point of disagreement that we're unlikely going to bridge.

It only makes sense to say that I am refusing to "admit" that there was a "working-class revolution" in China if you have presented an analysis and evidence that I have failed to come to terms with, but you have not yet done this. I'll ask in simple terms: what about 1949 made it a working-class revolution rather than a military victory by a nationalist party-army?


But regardless, here and here. Those are a good start, I think.

Sorry, what exact claim are either of those articles supposed to support?


More economism. The movement is the socialist movement...it's revolutionaries and their allies. That certainly exists in most countries

I don't accept that there is a socialist movement in any country. I don't consider the panoply of self-proclaimed revolutionary parties and glorious proletarian vanguards like the PSL constitutive of a movement, nor do I see them as offering a positive vision of socialism. I used to be an activist, and do not feel bad at all about no longer being one.


Since 1978 it has abrogated its responsibility in that regard more and more, to the point in which it's no longer acting as a real vanguard party (as I noted).

If this is the case, then why can change only occur within the CPC? You haven't yet explained what that means, of course, in terms of whether it simply means that we should expect CPC members to have a major role in social and political struggles, or whether it means that progressive change should only take place through peaceful and gradual means, including through changes in the personal composition of the party leadership. It's really hard to get an idea of what you're arguing when you haven't made those basic clarifications.


Before that point, the CPC was at the forefront of working-class struggle: the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward (terribly miscalculated, sure, but still part of socialist construction), the defeat of the Kuomindang, the defeat of Japanese imperialism, etc.

What does being "at the forefront of working-class struggle" mean in concrete terms in each of these instances? How was that the case during the Cultural Revolution in particular, when Mao and his associates condemned the Wind of Economism in 1966/7, and, in 1968/9, suppressed all forms of political radicalism through the PLA, including the xinshichao organizations?


Answer the question directly: if the position were reversed, would you still criticize the PRC for it?

In the bizarre event that the PRC came out and praised the US' current welfare system, yes, I would criticize them for it, because the US welfare system is appalling in its failure to provide genuine protection. If they came out and called for worldwide communist revolution and genuine workers power, then I would be even more surprised, and would expect meaningful political and social change within China as well, but in that instance I wouldn't criticize them for it.


You could say very much the same thing about the Red Army in Russia.

No, you couldn't, because whatever their other flaws, the Bolshevik seizure of power did not take place without the creation of autonomous institutions by the working class, as occurred in China, in fact, the decision to take power occurred within the framework of those institutions, the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet to be precise. The membership of the Bolsheviks was also overwhelmingly working-class rather than peasant.

[manic expression]

The CPC's move into the countryside was explicable, I don't think anyone would deny that. It was also made necessary by the failure of Stalin's policy in the Comintern. But my point is that the long-term rupture between the party and the working class had long-term implications for the ability and willingness of the party to carry out a socialist revolution in China. If you accept that the final victory of the CPC occurred through conventional warfare after a long period in the countryside rather than through the creation of autonomous institutions by the working class (and I assume you do accept this as an accurate characterization of history, based on what you've said) then the only way you can also argue that the working class took power in 1949 is if you have an idealist and substitutionist conception of socialist revolution in which the working class is capable of being represented and replaced by a party that has the right ideological outlook and is sufficiently disciplined. That line of argument makes sense within the context of Maoist paradigm because a major feature of Mao's thought is precisely a more ideological understanding of class that bases class labels on political outlook rather than social relations, but it also entails a move away from Marx's own notion of working-class self-emancipation, which is based on the working class as an actual social force transforming from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself through autonomous political action. It also carries with it the implication that socialism can be introduced by any political agent, including through a coup, and that the agency and involvement of the working class is effectively irrelevant.
OK, I agree it had an effect on the CPC, but I don't think it was a complete rupture or anything like that. It was strategic, not ideological. The plain fact of the matter is that working-class forces sometimes need to get out of dodge. It doesn't cancel out their previous history, it doesn't mean a new identity and class consciousness is substituted for the old...it just means it's a guerrilla war.

There's an old Turkish (Kurdish?) revolutionary song that goes something like "if they come for you, don't worry, for the mountains will protect you". Do you really want to argue that that means you're suddenly no longer a communist but a peasant rebel?

Also, I do think you're begging the question of how the CPC could win the civil war without any support from the urban centers.


At this point I'm actually trying to just get a clear idea of what you are trying to argue. If we both accept that the working class as a social force was not central to the Chinese Revolution, then why exactly do you describe that revolution as working-class or socialist or whatever? Is it because you believe that the character of a revolution depends on the ideology of a party, regardless of its social composition and the involvement (or lack thereof) or concrete social forces?
The working class was central to the Chinese Revolution, in the same sense that it was to the Russian Revolution...full liberation of the country came from military action and also from support from the peasantry, but the locus of that was the proletariat. We can't be mechanicalist about this question...the CPC is suddenly un-proletarian as soon as it leaves city limits. Reality is far more complicated: one can be a force for proletarian interests without sitting in a factory or tenement building. Do you disagree?


So if you accept that the CPC was forced into the countryside, on what grounds did it remain "the workers' vanguard"?
On the grounds that an organization's class interests don't change whenever it happens to move somewhere.


It only makes sense to say that I am refusing to "admit" that there was a "working-class revolution" in China if you have presented an analysis and evidence that I have failed to come to terms with, but you have not yet done this. I'll ask in simple terms: what about 1949 made it a working-class revolution rather than a military victory by a nationalist party-army?
Check my first link.

China’s socialist revolution took place in an impoverished country with a predominantly peasant population. China was rife with mass starvation and famine. The Chinese people lived under the humiliating boot of western imperialism, facing mass opium addiction promoted by British colonialism. The people had withstood 22 years of fierce countrywide civil war and 15 years of Japanese military occupation.

Given this backdrop, the sheer heroism of the Chinese Revolution was breathtaking in scope. The leadership, especially Mao Zedong, had to navigate a path to revolution through the most complex and difficult problems. It is a truly amazing, larger-than-life story of human beings forging together a communist party and uniting hundreds of millions of destitute workers, peasants and peoples from many nationalities who together overcame the brutality of war and repression.

China’s revolution was socialist in the sense that its leaders in the CPC had a socialist orientation toward fulfilling the historic interests of the working class—even though the working class itself was still relatively small and immature. The old capitalist state was smashed, and the ruling Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) army led by Chiang Kai-shek fled the mainland for Taiwan.

The revolution created a new state—a new instrument of coercion against the former ruling class based on a new class power. The communist-led Red Army, made up of millions of peasants and workers, became the anchor of the new state power. The workers and poor peasants were elevated, at least in a sociological sense, to be the new ruling power.


Sorry, what exact claim are either of those articles supposed to support?
See above, and the second one is proof of progressive forces working in the parameters of the CCP.


I don't accept that there is a socialist movement in any country. I don't consider the panoply of self-proclaimed revolutionary parties and glorious proletarian vanguards like the PSL constitutive of a movement, nor do I see them as offering a positive vision of socialism.
Our movement is made up of revolutionaries, and where there are revolutionaries, there is our movement.

And forgive the forthright expression, but revolutionary parties (including, but not limited to the PSL) offer a more positive view of socialism on any given Friday than your entire tendency has done since 1900.


If this is the case, then why can change only occur within the CPC?
I don't think it can only occur within the CPC, I think it would necessarily involve workers outside of the CPC, and could possibly take place entirely outside the CPC. I believe I said so in one of my previous posts.


What does being "at the forefront of working-class struggle" mean in concrete terms in each of these instances? How was that the case during the Cultural Revolution in particular, when Mao and his associates condemned the Wind of Economism in 1966/7, and, in 1968/9, suppressed all forms of political radicalism through the PLA, including the xinshichao organizations?
The Cultural Revolution was about putting the initiative back into the hands of the masses instead of primarily having political processes through the party. The CPC leadership essentially spurred on a campaign of popular protest against the state. Incidentally, it's not very much different from what you've been alluding to in terms of parties and the movement.


In the bizarre event that the PRC came out and praised the US' current welfare system, yes, I would criticize them for it, because the US welfare system is appalling in its failure to provide genuine protection. If they came out and called for worldwide communist revolution and genuine workers power, then I would be even more surprised, and would expect meaningful political and social change within China as well, but in that instance I wouldn't criticize them for it.
I appreciate the answer.... So why do you think this thread was posted? One PRC official says something about the US and everyone goes berserk...kind of besides the point, no?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hey, baby einstein, I didn't say I agreed with what the PRC said here...I said that if the position of this official were reversed, you'd more than likely be on your high horse bashing the PRC for supporting the US capitalist state that so nakedly oppresses workers. Deny it or don't, but at least read what I write next time.


Perhaps I misread it, but I would criticize the PRC for saying anything other than "the US should have a socialist revolution". Regardless of whether they support or oppose the welfare state. Although I think the welfare state which the PRC is criticizing is preferable to the kind of society which they are recommending ("austerity" and all that jazz), at least as far as conditions for working people, students and the elderly are concerned. One does not need to like the modern Western Welfare state to see that the uninhibited "austere" Capitalism which the PRC is calling for would cause an increase in exploitation and human suffering.


I don't think it can only occur within the CPC, I think it would necessarily involve workers outside of the CPC, and could possibly take place entirely outside the CPC.

I think the real question is whether or not current policies and priorities set by the CCP really encourages socialist revolution at home or abroad. From what I understand, the CCP takes a dim view on worker's rights movements, ethnic minority struggles, and other types of social conflict both in the country and within other states. This doesn't mean that there are not genuine revolutionaries in the CCP, or that genuine leftists are pushing for change within the CCP, but it could mean that the CCP is too corrupted at this point (or, as other posters are saying, it has always been too corrupt).


So why do you think this thread was posted? One PRC official says something about the US and everyone goes berserk...kind of besides the point, no? It's not at all besides the point. The PRC is the main creditor of the US, what they think about US fiscal policy is very important.


We're going to see all that shit, the cuts, the drops, etc. anyway, no matter who says what. The Chinese official who spoke those words was simply proving his loyalty to the class of bankers who think it's wonderful when they get bailed out, but only when others have to pay.

Actually, since the article was in Xinhua, presumably it was giving the view of the PRC government which does not want to need to bail out its state banks for loaning to the US.



As for this mythology of a "more progressive position" by the CPUSA.... really give us a break-- that's like saying... wait a minute, not "like," it is saying that Obama is "more progressive" than Kantor; that Pelosi is "more progressive" than Palin when the fact of the matter that the shared class interests of Obama, Kantor, Pelosi, Palin makes such distinctions meaningless when the issue is... as the issue really is... protecting capitalism at the expense of the workers; and protecting capitalism is always done at the expense of the workers.Ironic humor isn't your strongpoint is it?

[caramelpence]

OK, I agree it had an effect on the CPC, but I don't think it was a complete rupture or anything like that. It was strategic, not ideological.

Are you saying that the CPC didn't alter ideologically over the course of its 1921-49 history? It certainly did, and this is recognized across the historical scholarship. The CPC under Chen Duxiu was marked by a commitment to a fairly orthodox Marxist concept of revolution in that Chen called for the party to orientate itself towards the working class and downplayed the strategic significance of the peasantry, and even after Chen had been ousted from the leadership as a result of the 1927 debacle, there was still an orientation towards the cities, even as the party had already lost a large part of its urban membership, in that Moscow-trained party leaders like Li Lisan and Wang Ming were responsible for the party centre remaining formally located in Shanghai in order to prepare for urban insurrections, until it was finally forced to relocate to Jiangxi during the 1931-2 period as a result of increasing KMT suppression. It was only through Mao that the party eventually assumed a more rural focus, culminating in Mao's concept of protracted people's war, which identified the decisive strategic importance of the countryside and peasantry. This shift in emphasis towards the countryside was linked to other aspects of Mao's thought that emerged over time as he consolidated his position within the party, such as his voluntarism, emphasis on tactical alliances, and attention to local conditions, culminating in the 1945 party constitution's recognition of Mao Zedong Thought as its guiding ideology. The party's initial urban focus did survive in Chinese Marxism but it did so through the emergence of a Trotskyist trend, which included Chen Duxiu himself, leading some scholars of Chinese Trotskyism such as Benton to Dirlik to argue that the adoption of Trotsky's analyses in China signified a "return to origins", such was the break between Maoism and the party's original ideological basis, as well as the commonalities between Trotskyism and the major features of early Chinese Marxism.


Do you really want to argue that that means you're suddenly no longer a communist but a peasant rebel?

No, the change in the party's social basis was a protracted and uneven process, the same being true of its ideological basis, but that change still took place and was highly significant. The party was totally divorced from the cities by the time it took power. The party lost as much as 90% of its membership through the events of April 1927 and the immediate aftermath and lost the same proportion again during the course of the Long March, so by the time it took power there was hardly any personal continuity outside of the leadership, as I've pointed out.


Also, I do think you're begging the question of how the CPC could win the civil war without any support from the urban centers.

Why would the CPC need urban support to win the civil war? The most important thing was that the urban population was hungry for peace in the aftermath of the Sino-Japanese War and had been alienated from the returning KMT regime through the government's failure to stop petty corruption and sustained inflation. In fact, some historians have gone so far as to argue that we should not really think of the CPC winning the civil war, rather, it was more a case of the KMT losing through the disintegration of their regime, and the CPC taking advantage of the resulting vacuum of power. There were no scenes of mass enthusiasm when the PLA took over cities, and workers did not rise up in expectation of the KMT being ousted, there was overall simply resignation. The PLA was able to achieve military superiority by taking advantage of the abysmal state of KMT armies (in fact, a large proportion of their own recruits had originally fought with the KMT, and a large proportion of their heavy weapons were similarly captured from the KMT, having originally been provided by the United States) and through the uneven support of the Soviet Union.


The working class was central to the Chinese Revolution, in the same sense that it was to the Russian Revolution...full liberation of the country came from military action and also from support from the peasantry, but the locus of that was the proletariat

The fundamental difference is that the Russian Revolution took place in a context where autonomous institutions of workers power had already emerged and where the working class had a heightened political consciousness, such that the Bolsheviks had obtained the status of a revolutionary party with a firm base in the Soviets, and received their initial mandate to take and exercise power through those Soviets, and the Petrograd Soviet in particular. There were no such autonomous institutions in China in the 1940s, there was not a revolutionary situation in the same way that there was in Russia, the working class did not have an active role.


On the grounds that an organization's class interests don't change whenever it happens to move somewhere.

It's not about "moving elsewhere", it's about whether an organization has an organic and active relationship with the working class or not. This was not the case after 1927 because a party-army that operates through guerilla war in the countryside cannot by definition be rooted amongst a class of people who sell their labour in an urban and industrial context on a daily basis, i.e. the working class. If you think that a party can retain a commitment to the class interests of the working class and act on their behalf even whilst having no organic relationship with the class then you are supporting the substitutionist and idealist conception of revolution I outlined above, which has nothing to do with Marx's concept of self-emancipation.

Will hopefully respond to the rest tomorrow.

[S.Artesian]

Actually, since the article was in Xinhua, presumably it was giving the view of the PRC government which does not want to need to bail out its state banks for loaning to the US.

Only the central bank is allowed to hold dollar denominated deposits and securities, which is why the People's Bank has accumulated the US Treasury securities-- the market in US government debt is the only market big enough and liquid enough to hold the dollars deposited [mostly] by foreign based export companies in China [who pretty much dominate the export trade, and conduct that trade in dollars] who deposit their earnings in demand deposit accounts with local and regional banks which in turn forward the currency to the central bank.

Being forced to bail out its regional banks due to devaluation of US debt instruments is, or should be the last thing the PRC government and the CPC should be worrying about as those banks are so undercapitalized, overextended with real estate loans, and loans to state operated enterprises that the real danger is in another decline in manufacturing and exports a la 2008, that will lead to the banks collapsing.

Ironic humor? When I hear the term "progressive," I gag, I don't laugh. Nothing has done more damage to humanity than this notion of "progressive."

[manic expression]

Perhaps I misread it, but I would criticize the PRC for saying anything other than "the US should have a socialist revolution". Regardless of whether they support or oppose the welfare state. Although I think the welfare state which the PRC is criticizing is preferable to the kind of society which they are recommending ("austerity" and all that jazz), at least as far as conditions for working people, students and the elderly are concerned. One does not need to like the modern Western Welfare state to see that the uninhibited "austere" Capitalism which the PRC is calling for would cause an increase in exploitation and human suffering.
OK, just wanted to make sure you knew what I was saying...and I don't see any government saying "the US should have a socialist revolution". It would be sloganeering and useless sloganeering at that. I don't even think the Spanish anarchists came out with those statements during their period in power.


I think the real question is whether or not current policies and priorities set by the CCP really encourages socialist revolution at home or abroad. From what I understand, the CCP takes a dim view on worker's rights movements, ethnic minority struggles, and other types of social conflict both in the country and within other states. This doesn't mean that there are not genuine revolutionaries in the CCP, or that genuine leftists are pushing for change within the CCP, but it could mean that the CCP is too corrupted at this point (or, as other posters are saying, it has always been too corrupt).
It's a mixed record. The CPC is relatively strong with ethnic minority rights (not perfect, but relatively progressive) IMO, but weak in other areas. Still, whether or not the CPC is "too corrupt" is probably beyond all of us to say. As such, I think it's important to look to revolutionaries and genuine working-class voices within and without the CPC...if you ask me, it'll probably be a mix of both, but then again we can't know so we might as well keep our views flexible.


It's not at all besides the point. The PRC is the main creditor of the US, what they think about US fiscal policy is very important.
One official is one official, though. And the anti-PRC posters would be bashing the PRC even if that official didn't open his/her mouth, so it seems like it's jumping at any opportunity to badmouth the PRC.

Honestly, on the scale of things for leftists to criticize in the PRC, this should be pretty low. Safety standards for construction, miners, railway workers and commuters, etc. is about 100x more important than this "uh-oh this official said something not leftist!" stuff.

[S.Artesian]

Somehow I must have missed that thread where all the PSLers unleash a class-based criticism of China for its lack of safety standards in construction, in mines, in rail operations etc.-- all that stuf that 100X "more important" than the bleatings of a wanking banker worried about his rate of return.

[manic expression]

Are you saying that the CPC didn't alter ideologically over the course of its 1921-49 history? It certainly did, and this is recognized across the historical scholarship.
I was referring to the decision to begin a guerrilla war and base much of the party outside of urban centers. Most parties shift ideology in the course of a few decades...but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the CPC's class interest changed entirely because of the explicable (in your words) strategic change made for survival.


No, the change in the party's social basis was a protracted and uneven process, the same being true of its ideological basis, but that change still took place and was highly significant. The party was totally divorced from the cities by the time it took power. The party lost as much as 90% of its membership through the events of April 1927 and the immediate aftermath and lost the same proportion again during the course of the Long March, so by the time it took power there was hardly any personal continuity outside of the leadership, as I've pointed out.
Why are you blaming the CPC for getting betrayed by Chiang? Yes, they lost many members...but they survived and did what they had to do. They went above and beyond the call of duty for any communist organization, and that's why they, the vanguard party, took power.


Why would the CPC need urban support to win the civil war?
The same reason the Bolsheviks did. Power in numbers...the worker-peasant alliance is of utmost importance when a society such as China is in the midst of class warfare.


There were no scenes of mass enthusiasm when the PLA took over cities, and workers did not rise up in expectation of the KMT being ousted, there was overall simply resignation.
:rolleyes: Yes, after years of brutal oppression by the Kuomindang and the Japanese imperialists, the workers weren't waiting ready with candy and flowers. :rolleyes:


The fundamental difference is that the Russian Revolution took place in a context where autonomous institutions of workers power had already emerged and where the working class had a heightened political consciousness,
You just mentioned that Chinese workers had refused to support the Kuomindang. How is that not heightened political consciousness? Further, you're dancing around the issue because in most of what would become the Soviet Union, military strength won the day, not autonomous institutions of workers power.


It's not about "moving elsewhere", it's about whether an organization has an organic and active relationship with the working class or not. This was not the case after 1927 because a party-army that operates through guerilla war in the countryside cannot by definition be rooted amongst a class of people who sell their labour in an urban and industrial context on a daily basis, i.e. the working class.
I like the sudden emergence of holistic language. "Organic relationships". Yeah, how about the "organic relationship" of having the workers' vanguard in control of an army of the masses liberating a country from crushing capitalist oppression? A political organization, like I've kept saying, does not change its character if it's forced out of a city or a region. "Organic relationship" is something you'll have to quantify.

[manic expression]

Somehow I must have missed that thread where all the PSLers unleash a class-based criticism of China for its lack of safety standards in construction, in mines, in rail operations etc.-- all that stuf that 100X "more important" than the bleatings of a wanking banker worried about his rate of return.
You missed a bit more than that (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12205&news_iv_ctrl=1261), apparently:

Following Mao’s death in 1976, the left wing of the party was routed and its leaders were arrested. By 1978, the "capitalist roaders," galvanized under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, introduced sweeping economic reforms under the newly concocted and theoretically unfounded label of "market socialism."

These reforms led over the course of several steps to the "opening up" of China to imperialist banks and corporations. The development strategy was premised on a strategic assumption: The lure of super profits from the employment of low-wage labor in China would lead to massive capital investment by the industries and banks that possessed the most advanced technology. China would benefit in its "development" by accessing and acquiring the latest technologies.

The Chinese commune system of collectivized agriculture was also dismantled. The Chinese countryside, known throughout Asia in the decades prior to the 1970s for its egalitarian achievements and social gains for the poorest peasants, became severely stratified again.

While millions of more well-to-do peasants saw a sharp rise in their living standards, a huge mass of rural dwellers lost everything. Left to fend for themselves, they migrated by the tens of millions to urban areas seeking employment in newly created factories—many in special economic zones set aside for foreign capitalist investors. This migrant labor force, uprooted from the land, became the source of human material necessary for the establishment of a new market-based private capitalist sector.

Within 25 years, the People’s Republic of China was fully integrated into the capitalist world economy. Foreign direct investment skyrocketed as U.S., European and Japanese capital set up in China to take advantage of the huge labor pool. Transnational corporations helped create the largest industrial work force in the world.

Contradictions in China today

The reforms initiated by the Deng Xiaoping-led government and expanded by subsequent leaderships within the Communist Party of China have given rise to a new bourgeoisie inside China—a class of Chinese with interests opposite those of the Chinese working class, but also distinct from the interests of world imperialism. The CPC-led state has functioned as the protector of this bourgeoisie both in its relations with the Chinese working class and in its relations with the imperialist bourgeoisie.

To the extent that the Chinese state has promoted and enforced the rights, the interests and the needs of the Chinese bourgeoisie and the transnational corporations functioning within China, the state assumes the tasks of a bourgeois state. Since it is a state that originated from a working-class revolution and enjoyed an immense base of support from within the working class and peasantry, the Chinese state has only been able to incrementally, and over a time frame of several decades, diminish its historic obligations to and defense of its original social base.

The Chinese state and the Communist Party of China have essential elements of what is known as Bonapartism. The ruling party has to a degree straddled the class divide and has a foot within both the bourgeoisie and the working class.

-----------------------------------

Keep telling yourself the PSL has nothing negative to say about the PRC...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The ruling party has to a degree straddled the class divide and has a foot within both the bourgeoisie and the working class.

That's almost right. They've got a foothold... The ruling party shines the bourgeoisie's shoes, keeps boots on workers' necks and kicks proletarian militants' asses.

[S.Artesian]

I was just going to say the same thing. "Straddles the divide"? That's real Marxist analysis. Right. "Bonapartists" do not straddle the "class divide" when it comes to the mode of production, to accumulation. They maintain order for the bourgeoisie, for capital, for the exploitation of labor.

This horseshit about "balancing between the contending classes" misses the essence of "Bonapartist" formations-- that they are organized by and to defeat social revolution.

[caramelpence]

Check my first link.

That link and especially the text you quoted does not contain evidence to show that the working class had an active and important role, in fact, it does not contain much content at all, in that it consists mostly of rhetoric and slogans.


See above, and the second one is proof of progressive forces working in the parameters of the CCP.

That article is actually deceptive, though more substantive than the PSL's material. What it ignores is that the New Left is an extremely diverse and diffuse trend. There are segments of the New Left who take a positive stance towards the CPC and this is part of a broader political outlook that is problematic in other ways as well. These individuals, who include the academics Zhang Hongliang and Kong Qingdong, argue that the major contradiction in contemporary China is between Chinese society as a whole and the United States, often articulating this view by playing on historic fears of racial genocide. They also argue that China's current direction is the result of the party leadership being under the control of a pro-market faction that can be overturned within the party itself by a socialist faction in order to change China's development strategy. This segment of the New Left takes an aggressive stance towards other New Leftists who reject the CPC and view different leaders and factions within the party as representing different views on how to build capitalism and enhance their own family wealth, rather than being underpinned by genuine political differences. This is important because it means that whilst there are New Leftists who support the CPC, they exhibit an ideological stance that emphasizes racial conflict rather than class struggle, and those Leftists who do embrace class struggle in Chinese society also take a much more critical and hostile attitude towards the party. This (http://insurgentnotes.com/2010/06/chinese-new-left/) IN article and this (http://sanhati.com/excerpted/3894/) blog post provide a good characterization of these trends.

The article is also wrong in imply that Bo Xilai is part of the New Left in any meaningful sense, or that he has support across the New Left. Bo Xilai is not the radical that many commentators have made him out to be. He began his national political career as Minister of Commerce, where he continued the trend of opening up China to foreign investment and providing good conditions for foreign capitalist enterprise. There is nothing particularly socialist about the policies he has implemented whilst party boss in Chongqing, in that he has been able to achieve support and fame through a broadly populist program that has involved a crackdown on organized crime, alongside the construction of subsidized housing, and of course red songs and red text messages. The fact that he received a visit and public praise from Xi Jinping, the most likely replacement for Hu Jintao in the imminent leadership transition, shows just how mainstream and acceptable his policies are. His substantial personal wealth and status as a "princeling" within the party leadership are also significant issues in terms of whether it's realistic to expect Bo to call for a genuine vision of socialism.


And forgive the forthright expression, but revolutionary parties (including, but not limited to the PSL) offer a more positive view of socialism on any given Friday than your entire tendency has done since 1900.

Your party evidently views China and Cuba as socialist in one way or another, and is especially positive towards the latter, whereas I do not view either of these societies as models to aspire to.


I don't think it can only occur within the CPC, I think it would necessarily involve workers outside of the CPC, and could possibly take place entirely outside the CPC.

At the risk of repetition, you still have not clarified what any of this means despite several requests. When you say that change is most likely to take place within the CPC does this mean that you envisage change taking place through the peaceful and gradual alteration of the personal composition of the leadership and the party's policy direction, or do you mean that you simply expect CPC members to be at the forefront of a future violent upheaval against the state? Doesn't the fact that you celebrate the crushing of the Tiananmen protests say a lot about your ultimate tolerance for movements that take place without party authorization, even when they also contain party members and state officials?


The Cultural Revolution was about putting the initiative back into the hands of the masses instead of primarily having political processes through the party.

This is a simplistic and rhetorical characterization, and I happen to know quite a lot about the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was characterized by a constant desire on Mao's part to restrain the actual level of social and political upheaval - in my last post I referred to some of the ways in which this was the case, including the condemnation of the Wind of Economism and the eventual suppression of factional conflict, but you did not pick up on either of these issues. The institutional structure that emerged out of the first stage of the Cultural Revolution, the revolutionary committees, did not allow for genuine democratic participation, instead they facilitated the militarization of Chinese politics, in that the PLA was one of the three actors who were guaranteed representation through the committees (the other two being mass organizations and cadres) and it was invariably PLA officers who dominated the standing committees at all levels and determined which cadres and mass representatives would make up the rest of the body. It is also worth pointing out that whilst you seem to have a positive (and oversimplified) view of the Cultural Revolution, this is sharply at variance with the views of post-Mao party leaders, whom you also support, in that the 1981 resolution on party history condemned the Cultural Revolution in strong terms, including Mao's perceived role in promoting factionalism.


I appreciate the answer.... So why do you think this thread was posted? One PRC official says something about the US and everyone goes berserk...kind of besides the point, no?

The Chinese state expressed its view through Xinhua, its news agency, this is not just one official offering some brief or casual remarks. This thread provides an opportunity to consider the nature of the contemporary Chinese state and sharpening antagonisms between China and the US.


I was referring to the decision to begin a guerrilla war and base much of the party outside of urban centers.

I don't think it's accurate to characterize the party's turn to the countryside as a "decision", as that postulates a degree of planning and agency. The defeat of April 1927 (and the subsequent defeat at Wuhan, after the party sided with the left wing of the KMT) shattered the party and seriously undermined its communications and decision-making mechanisms. It was not as if the party leadership took a collective decision to opt for the countryside. The situation that emerged was one where there were multiple base areas in southeastern China even though the party remained formally based on Shanghai. These base areas emerged from local party leaders following their instincts and doing all they could to survive, rather than following a unified strategy or pre-arranged plan. What is interesting about these base areas is that they followed the historical trajectory of peasant protest movements and other phenomena like millenarian cults and bandit rebellions, in that they were able to establish themselves in mountainous areas on the border between provinces where state capacity had historically been weak, compared to the lowland areas and the interior of individual provinces. The important thing is that this move, as protracted and uneven as it was, brought about fundamental changes in the party's social base and ideological orientation.


Why are you blaming the CPC for getting betrayed by Chiang?

I don't, I blame the Comintern and Stalin for the party's defeat.


The same reason the Bolsheviks did. Power in numbers...the worker-peasant alliance is of utmost importance when a society such as China is in the midst of class warfare.

This is a circular argument. In order to show that there was a socialist revolution in China you need to show, through historical evidence, that the working class did in fact take an active role in its own emancipation, assuming we agree that this is a key part of a socialist revolution. You cannot simply assume a priori that the revolution in China was socialist and deduce on that basis that there must have been working-class involvement.


You just mentioned that Chinese workers had refused to support the Kuomindang. How is that not heightened political consciousness?

Because rejection of the KMT did not entail active support for the CPC or widespread social mobilization.


Further, you're dancing around the issue because in most of what would become the Soviet Union, military strength won the day, not autonomous institutions of workers power.

The militarization of the Russian Revolution and the social consequences resulting from the civil war, such as the depletion of the cities, contributed towards the defeat of the revolution, so in that sense I would agree with what you seem to be implying, namely that the Chinese Revolution and Russian Revolution were both highly militarized at certain points. I differ from you in accepting that such militarization undermined the socialist content of the Russian Revolution, whereas you are again assuming a priori that the Russian Revolution must have been socialist throughout and are trying to prove on that basis that the Chinese Revolution was also socialist by pointing to superficial similarities between them. I would also emphasize again that even the military struggle that emerged from Russia emerged out of a setting of autonomous workers power, whereas in China the civil war only had the character of a conventional war, in that it did not take place in a context of broader social mobilization and political change. It is the absence of moves on the part of the working class to create its own autonomous institutions that makes the Chinese Revolution a nationalist revolution rather than a socialist one.

You still have not actually spelt out what makes a revolution socialist and why the Chinese Revolution in particular was socialist. On the one hand you have asserted (without historical evidence) that there was active urban support for the CPC, which suggests that you accept that the activity of the working class as a social force is important. On the other hand you have insisted that the CPC remained a "workers vanguard" even when it was divorced from the countryside and you have tried to show that the Russian Revolution took place along similar lines as the Chinese Revolution, assuming that I view the former as straightforwardly socialist. The latter of these perspectives suggests an idealist and substitutionist conception of revolution whereas the former accepts self-emancipation in theory, even if it has no historical basis. You need to spell out what you actually understand by socialist revolution.


Yeah, how about the "organic relationship" of having the workers' vanguard in control of an army of the masses liberating a country from crushing capitalist oppression?

This is really just another slogan. It is devoid of content. The actual ranks of the PLA were not comprised solely or even mainly of the peasants, let alone the working class, the PLA actually drew much of its support from smaller and more unstable strata like bandits, and during the civil war especially the PLA drew large numbers of recruits from the opposing side, having found it more difficult to recruit peasants once land reform had been carried out, at least in the absence of sustained community pressure. The relationship between the CPC and the peasantry was a complex one in that the CPC made use of different agrarian reform strategies depending on the tactical and strategic context, ranging from rent and interest rate reduction to the expropriation of rich peasants as well as landlords, but overall it is accurate to say that the CPC saw the peasantry as a resource to be mobilized, rather than believing that the peasantry would be able to liberate themselves without external guidance.


"Organic relationship" is something you'll have to quantify.

I don't know what you mean by "quantify" here

[Savage]

Apologies to you if you have already answered this question Manic, but do you agree with the PRC's advice to the US to cut welfare spending, which quite obviously, would make the material conditions of the American working class even worse than what they already are?

[Paul Cockshott]

Not it can't because printing dollars simply spreads the value of the dollar over more dollars that would mean it would cost more for the US to import commodities like oil epically if OPEC responds to a falling US dollar by dropping US dollars and demands all oil be traded in another currency that has been debated in OPEC for over a decade, if OPEC drops US dollar on top of what the US prints we would see a flood of US dollars hit the market as every nation on Earth tries to sell their US dollar reserves all at once to buy the new reserve currency.
Yes a devaluation of the dollar raises import costs but it does not mean that the US needs to refrain from this. What do you think the quantitative easing by the Fed has been doing these last two years if not devaluation of dollar holdings. But it has not produced the flood of dollars onto the market since the other countries with large budget deficits ( and thus large issues of bonds ) are even more insecure than the US dollar.

[Paul Cockshott]

We've heard that before, in various iterations. Doesn't quite work that way. It isn't like the Fed [which was given the authority over currency production] just says, "Fuck it. We'll just print up more dollars, give them to China, Japan, UK, and Russia [I think those are the 4 largest holders of US Treasury instruments] and 'voila!' problem solved."

Didn't work that way when the Fed essentially pumped money into the world's economy in 2008-2009 with its open-ended currency swaps; didn't work that way with "quantitative easing;" didn't work that when the Fed and the Treasury deployed TARP, PPIP, TALF, PDCF, the whole list of special investment vehicles etc.

Nothing was resolved. The inflation of the money base never made it into the economy, but sat in the banks as the banks' own reserves, own capital, all dressed up with nowhere to go.

What counts of course is not the specific action of S&P in reducing the credit-rating, but the overall trend of the global economy-- the global purchasing managers index, used to assess future industrial expansion, is right at the "no growth" mark; Brazil-- the "pre-China" China-- is rolling out protectionist programs specifically aimed at China.

Profit margins for key sectors [semiconductors, mining, etc] are declining.

Printing money doesn't work when the profitability of value production is deteriorating.

Printing money does not regenerate accumulation in the economy as a whole, but it does mean that ( politics permitting ) a state like the US or the UK can hold down the interest rate at which it borrows.

[Kiev Communard]

Printing money does not regenerate accumulation in the economy as a whole, but it does mean that ( politics permitting ) a state like the US or the UK can hold down the interest rate at which it borrows.

However, such a "holding down" would be just a temporary prop-up, without further positive effects on the economy under consideration. After all, after the abolition of gold standard the value of money as a commodity is tied to the value of all other commodities of the economy, and if their cumulative value does not increase through economic growth, the misnamed "quantitative easing" will lead to nothing other but the senseless increase in inflation.

[Psy]

Yes a devaluation of the dollar raises import costs but it does not mean that the US needs to refrain from this. What do you think the quantitative easing by the Fed has been doing these last two years if not devaluation of dollar holdings. But it has not produced the flood of dollars onto the market since the other countries with large budget deficits ( and thus large issues of bonds ) are even more insecure than the US dollar.
The market has thresholds as the US ruling class is not the entirety of the global ruling class, there will be a limit where the other capitalists instinct to preserve their own privileged position causes capitalists to pull their money out of the US market as they don't want to be the last one to leave the sinking ship if they think the US market is going to totally meltdown.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is interesting about these base areas is that they followed the historical trajectory of peasant protest movements and other phenomena like millenarian cults and bandit rebellions, in that they were able to establish themselves in mountainous areas on the border between provinces where state capacity had historically been weak, compared to the lowland areas and the interior of individual provinces. The important thing is that this move, as protracted and uneven as it was, brought about fundamental changes in the party's social base and ideological orientation.

[...]

The actual ranks of the PLA were not comprised solely or even mainly of the peasants, let alone the working class, the PLA actually drew much of its support from smaller and more unstable strata like bandits, and during the civil war especially the PLA drew large numbers of recruits from the opposing side, having found it more difficult to recruit peasants once land reform had been carried out, at least in the absence of sustained community pressure. The relationship between the CPC and the peasantry was a complex one in that the CPC made use of different agrarian reform strategies depending on the tactical and strategic context, ranging from rent and interest rate reduction to the expropriation of rich peasants as well as landlords, but overall it is accurate to say that the CPC saw the peasantry as a resource to be mobilized, rather than believing that the peasantry would be able to liberate themselves without external guidance.

Can you please cite your findings re. banditry? Sorry, I just don't buy the incredulous notion implied in your post that peasants and rural marauders could reconcile with one another. I mean, historically, such rural marauders weren't the social foundations of patrimonialism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html?p=2026731


It's all about protection from shepherds and their flocks gone astray, marauders, etc. [The peasants] want to be left alone, but since the shepherds and marauders may be more heavily armed, they need to resort to some central authority for protection. In exchange, there's absolutism and a cult of personality regarding the central authority.

And clearly the CPC after the late 1920s incorporated peasant patrimonialism into its organizational structure (which is then tied to its main social base).

[453534]

all the anti China stuff I am reading on here sound almost identical to the right wing anti China stuff. the only difference is that many people here pretend to be communist, but still the message is the same. also interesting was how there was a knife attack in xing jiang a few days after China criticsed the u.s economic policies. coincidence?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

all the anti China stuff I am reading on here sound almost identical to the right wing anti China stuff. the only difference is that many people here pretend to be communist, but still the message is the same. also interesting was how there was a knife attack in xing jiang a few days after China criticsed the u.s economic policies. coincidence?

Right-wing criticism of the current chinese state isn't sincerely concerned with the workers. They admire its modern expansion, but also feel threatened by its growing influence because it is competition.

We just don't like capitalism.

And there's something particular about a capitalism so flagrant, raw and reeking of inequality and abuse as the Chinese one, calling itself communist, under the rule of a party that is deeply reactionary yet considers itself, in public, and shrouded in ideological mists, socialist. It is like the United States considering itself such, and in many areas, the life of a worker in China is harsher and with even less influence than those in the U.S., which speaks volumes to the reprehensible nature of the latter more than anything.