Capitalist China and Mao.

[eric922]

This is just something I've been curious about. China is probably the best example of "pure" capitalism there is, no regulations, very few worker's safety laws, weak well-fare state. However, the ruling party in China seems to use the image of Mao a lot as propaganda, and I'm starting to wonder if they won't regret that one day.

As the workers and peasants are oppressed they will start looking for ways to fix the problems and they may once again turn to Mao and his theories and lead a new Maoist revolution, especially if an actual Maoist group started organizing the people. I'm just curious if you all think this is possible or if I'm mistaken.

[JoeySteel]

Hmm.. without casting a verdict on the nature of the PRC social system for this post, you are quite incorrect about this: "China is probably the best example of "pure" capitalism there is, no regulations, very few worker's safety laws, weak well-fare state."

1. The commanding heights of the economy are still state controlled (to a far higher degree than any advanced capitalist country that I know of)

2. There are plenty of regulations on plenty of things. Special Economic Zones have different regulations perhaps, but bureaucrats, managers, capitalists etc in China are still regularly executed for failing to follow regulations.

3. In the PRC constitution, workers' rights are better than in advanced capitalist countries. In State Enterprises this is more the case in practice, but enforcement of those standards is uneven. A lot of workers' struggles in China today use the on paper rights as a basis for their demands, and against private companies sometimes receive the help of the state.

4. The welfare state is uneven, in that rural residents have different standards, but what's considered "welfare state" expenditures and allowances have been on the rise, in large amounts, for the last decade, while the advanced capitalist countries have only cut cut cut.

Just wanted to clear that up. I can find some sources but I'm pretty confident in this, and if you have anything to prove that there exist no regulations on anything, or very few workers' safety laws, etc, etc, go for it.

[CommunityBeliever]

China is probably the best example of "pure" capitalism there is

The best examples of pure capitalism were in the 19th century (when Marx was alive).

[eric922]

Well it seems I was wrong about China, my apologies. Thanks for the information.

[JoeySteel]

Well it seems I was wrong about China, my apologies. Thanks for the information.

No worries. Without endorsing all of the views expressed, I would recommend some articles with a different perspective on China than some of the unbalanced views on China that are commonly expressed by people of varying political tendencies. I am a big fan of Mao by the way.

http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-chinese-economy-in-1978/

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2011-07/22/content_23048792.htm

http://www.karlmarx.net/topics/china-1/thecommunistpartyofchinaat90

http://handsoffchina.org/

[scarletghoul]

The best examples of pure capitalism were in the 19th century (when Marx was alive).
hmm, i dont think there is such a thing as 'pure capitalism'.. everything that seems to soil the purity of capitalism is in fact a product of capitalism itself,, its all ultimately in the pursuit of capital. so china isnt any less pure capitalism than 19th century england

[Geiseric]

No you weren't wrong at all, another "maoist" revolution would be foolhardy, it's asian stalinism. It would only strengthen the chinese bourgeoisie, if a "maoist" revolution was to happen. It's menshevism in china, it's class collaborationist. There are more workers in china today than there are in all western europe, why would another bourgeois revolution be necessary? This is where perminant revolution comes in, the chinese working class needs to destroy all enemies in china, and aid revolutions in the rest of asia. An isolated china will revert back to capitalism.

[scarletghoul]

This is where perminant revolution comes in, the chinese working class needs to destroy all enemies in china, and aid revolutions in the rest of asia.
lol yeah mao never thought of htat, if only he had read more trotsky

[Geiseric]

i know all of the "bloc of 4 classes" rhetoric and the class collaborationism wasn't an original goal for the chinese communists untill their movement was shot to the ground by the stalinists and most of their leadership and members were systematically weakened and killed. nothing he did was marxism, it was pure revisionism. And perminant revolution has been around longer than trotsky has, all it means is a workers party not being subordinate to any bourgeois parties, where maoists and stalinists do things vice versa.

[Geiseric]

And aiding revolutions doesn't mean supporting a stalinist puppet state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As the workers and peasants are oppressed they will start looking for ways to fix the problems and they may once again turn to Mao and his theories and lead a new Maoist revolution, especially if an actual Maoist group started organizing the people. I'm just curious if you all think this is possible or if I'm mistaken.

I hope not. Mao's New Democracy explicitly stated that Soviet economic planning was too centralized, and look what haphazard economic development under Mao (Great Leap Forward, economic policies during the Cultural Revolution) led to re. the "capitalist roaders."

As a national symbol? Perhaps, but any sort of "Maoist" revolution should have more appropriate national symbols, like Hua Guofeng.

[scarletghoul]

I hope not. Mao's New Democracy explicitly stated that Soviet economic planning was too centralized, and look what haphazard economic development under Mao (Great Leap Forward, economic policies during the Cultural Revolution) led to re. the "capitalist roaders."
The main difference between Mao's and Stalin's economics, and what mao meant when he said the ussr's planning was too centralised, is that in china things were developed more evenly, like agricultural industry, more gradual peasant collectivisation, etc, rather than just focussing on the heavy industry with the countryside as an afterthought.. This had considerable success, and china's economy done veryvery well throughout the 50s. the great leap forward is of course the exception, but aside from that the economy under mao was very good in terms of improving life for the workers and peasants, and developing the country in general. (in fact the great leap even had some positive effects too, though they were outweighed by bad effects).

Anyway im not sure why you think maoist economics is more prone to capitalist restoration than soviet economics.. they both gave way to a new bourgeoisie.. this was principally due to political balance of power in favour of the party over the masses, rather than any economic nuances.

[JoeySteel]

rather than just focussing on the heavy industry with the countryside as an afterthought.. .

Why do you think that the agricultural or rural economy was an afterthought in building socialism in the USSR? Collectivization occurred simultaneously with the building of a planned economy, and production of the means of agricultural production (tractors) was certainly very important, and not neglected or forgotten as far as I know.

[scarletghoul]

Why do you think that the agricultural or rural economy was an afterthought in building socialism in the USSR? Collectivization occurred simultaneously with the building of a planned economy, and production of the means of agricultural production (tractors) was certainly very important, and not neglected or forgotten as far as I know.
Yes of course they occured at the same temporal time (it would have been impossible otherwise), but i mean in terms of priorities the rural development seems to have been secondary to the urban industrial development. as far as i know there wasnt a real attempt to get rid of the gap between city and countryside, which was one of the key aims of development in red china.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The main difference between Mao's and Stalin's economics, and what mao meant when he said the ussr's planning was too centralised, is that in china things were developed more evenly, like agricultural industry, more gradual peasant collectivisation, etc, rather than just focussing on the heavy industry with the countryside as an afterthought.. This had considerable success, and china's economy done very very well throughout the 50s.

Actually, the growth rates of the Chinese economy before the GLF paled in comparison to the growth rates achieved in the Soviet Union even under Khrushchev, let alone under Stalin's crash industrialization. The economic program of Mao during this time was not unlike those in East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, as opposed to the more centralized ones in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia.

[JoeySteel]

Yes of course they occured at the same temporal time (it would have been impossible otherwise), but i mean in terms of priorities the rural development seems to have been secondary to the urban industrial development. as far as i know there wasnt a real attempt to get rid of the gap between city and countryside, which was one of the key aims of development in red china.

Maybe theres some truth to that but I dont know for sure. Collective farms were still considered private property. Stalin discusses the problem of elevating agriculture to public property worked by an agricultural proletariat so to speak, and the gap between city and country in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. As far as I know it was not something pursued or talked about afterwards.

[Armand Iskra]

Mao was sometimes too pragmatic: he disobeyed Comintern policy (of strikes in the Cities) in favor of his own thesis (of making brigand-like countryside warfare as a revolutionary act). But during his rule, often collided with USSR, Yugoslavia, Albania all for China's sake: Once China's industry had to experiment itself through worker's control (from yugoslavia) just to have an ire from the USSR; that once supported USSR's occupation of Hungary but opposed USSR's occupation over Czechoslovakia.

But perhaps as expected, Mao's China was more of "how to create a new morality, of using labor as means for discipline, otherwise, be called as people power." only to be copied by Kampuchea (that as if Communism can be achieved overnight, Idealistic though.)