China to Europe: you have too many worker protections

[DaringMehring]

--- Chinese government officials providing fodder for right-wing rags.
--- Awesome communist ideology!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058441/Europes-labour-laws-make-workers-lazy-says-Chinese-finance-chief.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Europe's labour laws and welfare systems make workers lazy, says Chinese finance chief
Jin Liqun said Europeans should stop 'languishing on the beach' and work harder
By SIMON DUKE
Last updated at 6:00 PM on 7th November 2011

Jin Liqun said Europeans should stop 'languishing on the beach' and work harder to alleviate the eurozone crisis
China has accused European workers of being ‘slothful’ and ‘indolent’ after refusing to put any of its vast resources into rescuing the euro.
The head of the Chinese state’s overseas investment arm said he would only help Europe if it reformed its ‘outdated’ labour laws and welfare systems.
Jin Liqun, chairman of the board of supervisors of China Investment Corporation, said Europeans should stop ‘languishing on the beach’ and work harder it they want to drag the eurozone out of its downward spiral.
And he said Europeans have become too reliant on state handouts and should stop looking to outside sources to tackle the debt crisis threatening the euro.
The broadside will deal yet another blow to Europe’s efforts to prevent the crisis in Greece from tearing apart the single currency.
At last week’s G20 summit of the world’s largest economies in Cannes, China rebuffed requests to put its financial might behind a comprehensive rescue plan to shore up the debt-laden countries on the eurozone’s periphery.
European leaders had hoped the world’s second largest economy would help underwrite a significant expansion of its £380billion bailout fund.
But Mr Jin scotched any prospect of China coming to their aid with a candid critique of European working practices.

In an interview on the Al Jazeera TV station, he said: ‘I think if you look at the troubles which have happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of their worn-out welfare societies.
‘Labour laws are outdated, the labour laws induce sloth, indolence rather than hard working. The incentive system is totally out of whack.’
Mr Jin, a Boston University graduate, said root-and-branch reform of European welfare systems was urgently required.

Mr Jin said generous safety nets discourage the unemployed from finding full-time work
Generous safety nets merely discouraged workers who have lost their jobs from finding full-time employment.
He said: ‘The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.
‘If you look at the European countries over the last five or six decades, you will find this system will have to be adjusted.’
Huge discrepancies in social welfare systems were an obstacle to fostering the closer ties between eurozone members that many economists believe are the only long-term solution to the crisis.
Mr Jin said: ‘Why should for instance, within eurozone, why should some members’ people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach. This is unfair.’

[tir1944]

Jesus fucking Christ...A "socialist" state and its "communist" party advising their capitalist collegues that they have "too much worker's rights".
This is the final nail to the grave to the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" theory.
Despicable,shameful and disgusting.

[Nox]

Oh the irony...

[Mather]

The Chinese capitalist class (including it's rotten 'communist' party) is as reactionary as any other capitalist class.

Over the last decade China has witnessed an increase in social unrest and working class militancy and hopefully this trend will become much more substantial as the global economic crisis sets in.

[humdog]

I don't know.. Seem likes Mr. Jin Liqun was just making a few throw-away points. China's 5-year plan is still pretty progressive.

[Per Levy]

Jin Liqun said Europeans should stop 'languishing on the beach' and work harder to alleviate the eurozone crisis

a right wing republican couldnt have said it better. also amazing class analysis there.

[Tim Cornelis]

Jesus fucking Christ...A "socialist" state and its "communist" party advising their capitalist collegues that they have "too much worker's rights".
This is the final nail to the grave to the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" theory.
Despicable,shameful and disgusting.

Incidentally, your favourite anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist/Hoxhaist Party of Albania is aligned with the Communist Party of China via the International Conference of Communist & Workers' Parties.

Juuust pointing that out ;)

[ZeroNowhere]

This was the official response of The Party last time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/china-urges-u-t159221/index.html?t=159221) this occurred, and remains relevant:


China's call for austerity: an analysis

Recently, it has been brought to our attention that the Chinese government has requested that the US ramp up austerity programs. This announcement displays an important aspect of the modern Chinese state, and hence must be investigated further. Through this analysis, we shall come to understand the modern Chinese situation both on the domestic and international stage, and hence clarify our position on the matter.

Now, in the first place, it is clear that the Chinese state has implemented some measures aimed towards providing social welfare, and this in fact constitutes its progressive character. It must also be taken into account that China is an anti-imperialist nation, as opposed to the blatantly imperialist condition of the US. These two empirically evident axioms shall form the basis for our further analysis. Given these facts by themselves, however, it may be asserted by some that China is simply exploiting the red colours towards promoting a particular, interventionist form of capitalism, or 'progressivism', and hence neither promoting socialism nor Caesarian rule; in other words, that the Chinese state is resting satisfied with what it has rather than engaging in proletarian internationalism and social-proletocratic revolutionism.

However, this statement reveals this to clearly not be the case. In actual fact, the Chinese state has clearly identified that its aim is not the liberal dream of a universalized welfare state adopted by countries of their own good will, and hence shows that it does not conceive of its own progressive tendencies as the alpha and omega of social evolution. For, after all, if one were to support socialism, while also identifying it with a welfare state and class collaboration, one would necessarily be forced to support this in the United States of America, and indeed especially there, whereas China have given the death knell to any claims of their left-reformism with this announcement. Such claims from the ultra-left are no longer tenable, and must be abandoned.

Nonetheless, if it is established that China is not in fact caught up in dead-end 'progressivism' and 'tred-iunionizm', this still leaves the question of what the Chinese state in fact advocates. Now, while on the part of Republicans the support of austerity measures is broadly compatible with a support for highly deregulated capitalism in the express interests of the rich and with low state intervention, this cannot be the case with China, as its own practice would not ultimately be compatible with such a conclusion. Their statements cannot be taken, as ultra-lefts tend to do, out of context, but rather must be seen within the remarkable context of the progressive tendencies of the Chinese state, which indeed makes this declaration seem more surprising to those caught up in a one-sided view of socialist progression, infused with the tinges of liberal progressivism. In actual fact, these two reactions, namely seeing the statement out of context on the one hand, and being surprised due to seeing the context as incongruous with the action on the other, form the two main prongs of the leftist opposition to this declaration, and nonetheless may be swept away by a simple analysis of the situation at hand.

While the first view may disregard or fabricate the context, and hence treat the Chinese government as if it were Sarah Palin, the second nonetheless, in its quick outrage and tendency towards shock before rational comprehension, forgets to note that what is actual is rational, and what is rational is actual. It is clear that the Chinese government is not against state intervention in the economy, and the employment of a welfare state, both of which have formed pillars of the progressive Chinese government since its inception. This would clearly be incompatible with a Republican conservatism, and rather place the Chinese government in the camp of progressivism. This progressive nature of the Chinese state is one side of the equation, and forms an important part of why they must form a vanguard for other anti-imperialist nations in the struggle against Western dominance. However, on the other side of things, it is clear that their call is also for the dismantling and down-scaling of the welfare state of the USA, which in fact contradicts progressivism, and hence establishes the ostensibly 'objectionable' features of the announcement, while at the same time freeing the Chinese state from the fetters of unfettered 'progressivism', as we have already explained. As this demand constitutes a demand for the scaling back of progressive aspects of the state, it is clear that it has a regressive aspect. As such, this regressive aspect of the demand must form the second aspect of the debate.

Hence, we are met with on the one side progressivism, and on the other side regressivism (we do not say conservatism, which would be the call to maintain the US as it is, and is clearly what would be preferred by most leftists attacking the Chinese government for their position). This conflict seems indissoluble. However, we have already seen one aspect of its resolution, namely that the regressivism removes the fetters that bound progressivism within its capitalist boundaries; no matter how much one may reform a capitalist economy in a progressive direction, it nonetheless remains a capitalist economy. To see the other, we must return to the analysis of imperialism and anti-imperialism. In the first place, it is clear that the USA is quite blatantly an imperialist state, while, as we have said, the Chinese state is an anti-imperialist state (we shall not argue this case in full in the present article, but will rather refer you to the PSL's numerous conclusive arguments as to the anti-imperialist nature of the Chinese state.) This gives the USA an inherently reactionary character, while China has a progressive character due to the proletarian nature of its state. Of course, it has made the occasional mistake, just like the US government when invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea and so on, but this does not dent its manifest proletarian destiny.

Now, how is it that the United States is able to maintain its imperialist domination, hence holding back the anti-imperialist forces of the downtrodden and revolutionary Third-World poor? It is clear that this ability is deeply tied in with its status as an advanced capitalist nation, established by the progressive characters of the American Revolution, the American Civil War and the American dub of Dragon Ball Z. This limited progressive character has been maintained throughout its existence, and hence helped it survive to be the strongest imperialist power of the modern day, although it must be noted that the far more progressive Soviet Union was able to challenge this status in a matter of decades, despite its establishment in the USA taking centuries; likewise, it has often been speculated that the rise of the Asian economies, and especially China, would be a threat to US hegemony. However, that aside, let us settle with the proposition that the US was able to maintain its status as an imperialist power through its status as an advanced capitalist nation. Let us further purport that China, with the alliance of several South and Latin American states, forms at once the strongest force of the anti-imperialist nations, one which the rest must follow if they are to ever successfully throw off their imperialist yokes, and at the same time the most progressive.

In this light, the whole equation comes to make sense, and harmony is restored where conflict seemed to reign. It has already been admitted that the demands of the Chinese government to the US government have a regressive character. However, on the other side of the coin, the US is able to maintain its power only through its progressive character. By performing these austerity cuts, the US regresses further towards the creation of on the one side an unaccountable nobility, on the other poor, undereducated peasants able only to work the land, and on the third side a leader with absolute power, surrounded by their advisers in the Super Congress and reams of courtiers in the Congress and Senate. Now, we have already seen and admitted that the power of the USA originates from the advanced level of its capitalism, which allows it not only military might but also economic power. However, it is just as clear, therefore, that the task facing any anti-imperialist nation if success is to be assured is to remove this advanced status of the US over the rest of the world, without which war against it will ultimately be futile and have to end in compromise if not defeat, and an absolute demoralization of the world's anti-imperialist working class.

Now, one way of doing this would be, theoretically, to outstrip the pace of the US's development, which may seem quite possible given the current progress of the Chinese economy. However, in actual fact this overlooks the fact that the US's strength is self-perpetuating, and that if other nations, especially those with an anti-imperialist character, begin to even threaten its power, it will wield both its military and economic might to eliminate this potential threat before its threat becomes an entelechy. Further, the US's current state of development in fact widens the range of facilities which it possesses in order to facilitate and accelerate growth, and hence gives it a head-start which takes on an exponential character, confirming the self-perpetuating nature of its power.

However, this leaves only one way forward for the anti-imperialist struggle, namely the regression of the United States itself to the point where, if it wages war, its own strength will sap from it nevertheless and leave it helpless to the powers of anti-imperialist invasion. This is where the progressive character of the Chinese demand is clearly illustrated, and at the same time shows that in fact the path forward for socialism and liberation is not through liberal progressivism, but rather, just as Paul Tillich saw salvation only in the God above God, so may we only through the 'progressivism above progressivism', elevated thus through regressivism itself. In actual fact, as we have seen, the Chinese demand is a demand for regression, and regression ultimately to the point of a feudal system, where ultimately the USA's power will necessarily collapse due to the collapse of its developed capitalist infrastructure and economy. This will open up a window which the anti-imperialist nations of the world will inevitably take, not content to allow themselves ruled over by a clown, and hence lead to the strengthening of anti-imperialist forces. Further, as against the regressivism of the United States on one pole, on the other will stand the relentless progressivism of China, along with its smaller allies such as the Latin American nations and North Korea. China will therefore form the beacon to the Third-World proletariat in its invasion of the US and negation of imperialism with its own power. In its feudal state, the US will be helpless to resist the relentless onslaught of the Third-World, lead by the Red Ant Liberation Army, and shall ultimately be subjected to its own medicine. This shall allow for the widespread deportation of US citizens for re-education, which we may discuss at a later date.

Now, through this we see that in actual fact the Chinese government's position hides a position neither limited to empty progressivism, nor without subversive intent, but rather one which is deeply subversive to the ruling capitalist order. If it should succeed in this agenda, we shall end up with the polarity of on the one hand progressive forces of anti-imperialism, grouped around China, and on the other hand the regressive and weak forces of imperialism, represented primarily by the now-weakened USA. This identity of progressivism and anti-imperialism shall supercede the common objection made that anti-imperialist regimes such as Iran have a reactionary character, which, while possessing a limited truth, fails to see the forest for the trees; it is only in progressive anti-imperialist struggle that this gap is bridged, and the Third World comes to possess consciousness of its inherently progressive nature. On the other side of things, however, it also constitutes another possible objection, namely that the progressivism of anti-imperialistic nations such as China and North Korea is of an essentially liberal and reformist character, precisely because it in fact constitutes the declaration that progressivism is not enough, but rather what must be obtained is freedom from exploitation through the undermining of capitalism and imperialism; indeed, this rejection of all chains and fetters is the principle of the coming revolution. Given this, we fully support the Chinese government in its attempts to implement socialism in the 21st Century situation, and condemn those who complain that it is taking too long for ignoring both the realities of the imperialist system of the 21st Century, and the clear self-superceding progressivism of the Chinese state.

[Aleenik]

Jesus fucking Christ...A "socialist" state and its "communist" party advising their capitalist collegues that they have "too much worker's rights".
This is the final nail to the grave to the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" theory.
Despicable,shameful and disgusting.Wait... actual Communist actually bought in to the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and this latest statement is just now the final nail in the coffin?

[El Louton]

State Capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2011/11/08/maybe-communism-isnt-so-bad-after-all/


Maybe Communism Isn't So Bad After All

0 comments, 0 called-out (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2011/11/08/maybe-communism-isnt-so-bad-after-all/#comments_header)
+ Comment now (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2011/11/08/maybe-communism-isnt-so-bad-after-all/#comment_reply)
+ Comment now (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2011/11/08/maybe-communism-isnt-so-bad-after-all/#comment_reply)

I’ve previously posted about the communist government of Cuba cutting taxes (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/can-we-trade-obama-for-castro/) and the CEO of Coca-Cola saying that communist China has a more business-friendly climate (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/coca-cola-ceo-says-china-now-more-business-friendly-than-the-united-states/) than the United States.
Having grown up during the Cold War, I still have a hard time believing my eyes when I read stories like these.
But those examples pale into insignificance compared to this story. A member of China’s political elite, which presumably makes him a member of the Communist Party, has a better understanding of economics than the Presidents of France and the United States.
Sure, that’s not saying much, but read what Jin Liqun, the head of China’s sovereign wealth fund, said about the European welfare state (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html).

If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack. “Why should, for instance, within [the] eurozone some member’s people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach? This is unfair.
Astounding. There’s also a video at the link.
So let’s think about what this means. The communist elite in China recognizes the importance of incentives and understands the corrupting influence of welfare on the human spirit (they would like this cartoon (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/two-pictures-that-perfectly-capture-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-welfare-state/)). Heck, even Castro admitted that communism was a failure (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/now-he-tells-us/).
Yet politicians here in America still want to make government bigger and create more dependency.
I guess it’s time for me to unfurl the hammer and sickle.



Forbes rag having a field day with this. Apparently, they are all "communists" now.

Ridiculous.

[Mather]

Forbes rag having a field day with this. Apparently, they are all "communists" now.

Ridiculous.


Slavoj Zizek made a good point that the capitalist systems of Asia, China included, could soon become the dominant model to follow for other countries.

This would see a capitalism with 'Asian values' where the welfare state is either scaled back to a skeleton service of done away with altogether along with the abolition of workers rights and the rights to strike.

There is the threat that this model of authoritarianism combined with free market economics could be imposed on Europe and North America.

[Ocean Seal]

State Capitalism.
No, just capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Slavoj Zizek made a good point that the capitalist systems of Asia, China included, could soon become the dominant model to follow for other countries.

This would see a capitalism with 'Asian values' where the welfare state is either scaled back to a skeleton service of done away with altogether along with the abolition of workers rights and the rights to strike.

There is the threat that this model of authoritarianism combined with free market economics could be imposed on Europe and North America.


It's been well known by planners that China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, (without the leverage), is the goal for the future.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism with extra-tyrannical characteristics.

[Savage]

The Chinese are criticizing the capitalist welfare system of the European imperialists...this is clearly progressive.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Jesus fucking Christ...A "socialist" state and its "communist" party advising their capitalist collegues that they have "too much worker's rights".
This is the final nail to the grave to the "socialism with Chinese characteristics" theory.
Despicable,shameful and disgusting.
Couldn't have said it better myself, comrade.

[tobbinator]

Can't they just change their name and any connection to "communism" so we can be rid of this embarrassment?

[Geiseric]

Oh the irony...

I was thinking the same thing. Stalinists bashing maoists? I thought they were buddies.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mr Jin said: ‘Why should for instance, within eurozone, why should some members’ people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach. This is unfair.’

And some people even work till they die! It's an outrage that people get to retire. Off the beaches and into the mines, loafers!

[Nox]

Mao must be turning in his mausoleum.

Oh wait...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Chinese bourgeoisie and their "Communist Party" can go screw themselves.

[RebelDog]

The relentless race to the bottom of the league goes on. The 19th century, here we come...........

[Rusty Shackleford]

Long live Deng & Liu!



(sarcasm)

[Le Rouge]

Let's hope Europe will tell china to fuck themselves.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Let's hope Europe will tell china to fuck themselves.
I believe Europe has several times.


*cough*colonialism, opium, slaughter, pillaging, exploitation*cough*

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe Europe has several times.


*cough*colonialism, opium, slaughter, pillaging, exploitation*cough*
I'm fairly sure that invading them is a bit different to telling them to fuck off. In any case, though, China's agenda isn't that far departed from that of Europe's capitalists.

[El Louton]

No, just capitalism.

True True.

[Savage]

Long live Deng & Liu!



(sarcasm)

Doesn't your organization consider China to be socialist

[promethean]

--- Chinese government officials providing fodder for right-wing rags.
--- Awesome communist ideology!The Chinese state currently does not have enough power to influence the policy of any western nation. What the Chinese state is attempting to advice European states is that the Chinese model of capitalism is superior to the European model. In either case, both the models are capitalist. The European states' rhetoric towards worker protections was just a way of class collaboration attempted in the form of social democracy, but the appeal of social democracy ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ideological flood barriers it broke. However, the Maoist finance chief seems to have forgotten about the fact that the rights and protections provided under social democracy were not actually given freely by the ruling class, but were actually won by class struggle and were remnants of the heights of class struggle of the past century.


This was the official response of The Party last time (http://www.revleft.com/vb/china-urges-u-t159221/index.html?t=159221) this occurred, and remains relevant:

Makes too much sense to have been written by an anti-imperialist.

[Agathor]

Slavoj Zizek made a good point that the capitalist systems of Asia, China included, could soon become the dominant model to follow for other countries.

This would see a capitalism with 'Asian values' where the welfare state is either scaled back to a skeleton service of done away with altogether along with the abolition of workers rights and the rights to strike.

There is the threat that this model of authoritarianism combined with free market economics could be imposed on Europe and North America.

I don't think that's a threat. This is another subject on which Zizek knows surprisingly little. The model that China uses is very similar to the model of early Victorian Britain. The comparison isn't perfect, because unlike Victorian Britain, China has very little national industry; most of their factories are owned by Koreans, Americans and Europeans. But in terms of democracy and worker's rights, it's extremely similar.

We didn't leave that system by accident. We steadily wrung concessions from the bourgeoisie, and they aren't going to disappear.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Victorian Britain wasn't as authoritarian as today's China. Otherwise, you wouldn't have the Chartist movement.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is the truth about a working class movement brewing in China today? Is it radical or does it believe that they need to kick out the CPC to install liberal democracy, i.e. a color revolution?

[Iron Felix]

lol what working class movement?

[RadioRaheem84]

lol what working class movement?

I guess that answers my question.

I just kept reading about all the growing discontent among the working class in China.

[R_P_A_S]

I would like to hear arguments against this bold claim. Are the European Labor laws and politics to blame for Europe's and the Euro's slump?

Again.. the workers are taking the blame..

[Rusty Shackleford]

Doesn't your organization consider China to be socialist


We consider the role of the state to be on the verge of, if not already, being used as a bourgeois state. The party is in a sense bonapartist.

Of course, we recognize the inner party two line struggle has had massive effects on society and how the party operates.

We support working class action in China because it reflects the capitalist turn the CPC has made. It may also help motivate the party to expel capitalists or at least give the left a little more room.

We dont support the overthrow of the CPC if it comes from a "solidarity" or NTC type situation. IT will only plunge china back into poverty. Only if the working class reasserts its position and retakes state power will we support a theoretical end to the CPC.

To that end, we dont engage in China bashing on popular bourgeois lines like 'Free Tibet' or 'massacre' at Tienamen Square and our view is to combat the fear and paranoia Americans seem to have about China and the PLA. China is a massive mixed bag, at one point the working class was really in control, now it is essentially the bourgeoisie. There are still State Owned Enterprises though, but they are dwindling fast. We'll see what happens at the next congress of the CPC.


Ill add to this real quick:

Now, both the right wing and the left wing view their policies as movements towards socialism. The right wing's emphasis is on making China a 'medium developed country' by 2050. The problem with that and Market Socialism is that Deng Xiaoping theory was touted as a new theory of building socialism when the CPSU called the NEP a retreat, we criticize Deng's theory. Both wings wanted to develop economic forces and put economic development at top priority. The left wing wanted to build it in a socialist manner whereas the right wing wanted to focus on market driven economic development. The right wing also opened up special economiczones and reduced some controls they have on trade which in the end gives up economic sovereignty.

Though the reforms gave rise to a new bourgeoisie and even let the bourgeoisie into the party, China is not an imperialist power. Though, the current view of the CPC is to keep tensions between the US and China at a minimum so as to not hamper economic development.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Though the reforms gave rise to a new bourgeoisie and even let the bourgeoisie into the party, China is not an imperialist power. Though, the current view of the CPC is to keep tensions between the US and China at a minimum so as to not hamper economic development.
I beg to differ that china is not an Imperialist power
http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-imperialism-africa-t163918/index.html


Human Rights Watch found that pay at the Chinese-run mines was higher than Zambia's minimum wage, but much lower than that paid by other multinational copper mining firms.
The workers said they often had to buy their own safety equipment.
"Sometimes when you find yourself in a dangerous position, they tell you to go ahead with the work," one miner told Human Rights Watch.
"They just consider production, not safety. If someone dies, he can be replaced tomorrow. And if you report the problem, you'll lose your job."
Zambia's new President, Michael Sata, has been a longstanding critic of conditions in Chinese-run enterprises in Zambia.
But he toned down his anti-Chinese rhetoric in his last campaign, and since he was elected.
Chinese companies took over many Zambian mines after western investors pulled out following a collapse in copper prices.
Prices for Zambia's prime export have recently shot up, fuelled by Chinese demand.
China has invested more than $400m (£250m) in Zambia's mining industry, and Zambia earned $2.2bn from copper exports to China last year.
The total trade between the two countries last year was $2.8bn.Or if the abuse of workers in Zambia isn't enough, what about their land grabs in Africa?
(http://www.africaontheblog.com/africa-must-reject-the-land-grabs-letter-to-china-india-harvard-egypt-kuwait-et-al/)

Africa is on the brink of losing only what she’s got left; that is, her land. The telescopes of several countries and corporations are on Africa, which until recently still possessed vast areas of arable and virgin land. This shift is due to the rising food prices, (http://www.wfp.org/stories/rising-food-prices-10-questions-answered) climate change (http://epa.gov/climatechange/)and massive populations in Asia, particularly, China, Arab Countries such as Egypt and Kuwait, and India. China has been acquiring land on the cheap from African countries, most of which are emerging out of conflict. Even though the Foreign Ministry (http://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/)of China rejects as false claims (http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2011/07/29/china-rejects-claims-of-africa-land-buy-ups) of spending millions of dollars in acquiring and grabbing agricultural land across Africa, indeed it has been their practice and are doing it through several chinese corporations and business men (http://seekingalpha.com/article/71590-china-s-agriculture-sector-is-ripe-for-investment) (which are protected by the government). Most Africans are watching helplessly as their governments, presided over by corrupt bureaucrats conclude unfair deals for kickbacks that benefit the African elite and the billion Chinese people while putting the welfare of Africans on the line.

...

While buying land and improving it to achieve full productivity would not be a problem, African leaders are getting into secretive negotiations that are not in any way beneficial to the citizens but to politicians and their cronies. With no clear policy on such matters, an avalanche of “land investors” has overran Africa, tying up deals of leases of 50 to 100 years, with some costing, according the Guardian Newspaper, as little as $1.50 per hectare per year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/aug/24/indian-agribusiness-land-east-africa)! This is only equated to theft, and whichever government is involved is doing just that – Stealing. Therefore, China, India, Harvard, and other countries and corporations involved in the unfair purchase of African Land are merely thieves. Africa continues to be the continent with the highest risk of hunger (food insecurity) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-investment-land-idUSTRE76P77P20110726), yet, the food to be planted on these vast lands will be or is mainly for export. It is therefore not naive to assume that it might become cheaper for the Chinese or Indian to buy food that is grown in East Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa), if the East African ever gets the chance of buying it. And if the producer decides to sell their food in the local market, it is probable that the local farmer will not be able to compete with the Chinese or Indian producer. There is a lot at stake, including potential loss of jobs, increasing poverty and hunger as the Africa land grabs will potentially exacerbate theexisting food insecurity in Africa (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=african-land-grab-threatens-food-se) for the growing African population, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa) at over one billion people with a very high growth rate. Moreover, massive profits by foreign firms in Africa are repatriated.
Or abuse of workers, deforestation, and corruption of the local government in Cambodia? (http://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/cambodia_china-05232008092653.html)

Chinese money has been tied up with massive agricultural and forestry exploitation projects, which are destroying traditional ways of life such as bamboo-harvesting and resin-tapping, activists said.

The Cambodian government granted a Mondulkiri forest concession of 200,000 hectares—20 times the legal limit—acquired secretly by Pheapimex, an ethnic-Chinese owned Cambodian conglomerate with close ties to Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Pheapimex formed a joint venture with China’s Wuzhishan plantation firm to exploit the region, displacing indigenous minority people who rely on the forests for their traditional livelihoods.

Global Witness said bigger deals involving Chinese state-backed companies were likely the least transparent and the most strongly defended by government security forces, who responded with military force to anti-logging protests by villagers in Mondulkiri.

“From the perspective of people in Cambodia who might want to ask questions about the process... it’s even more difficult with some of these recent deals that have totally been brokered behind closed doors,” Taylor said.

He said the outcome of such deals for people living in rural areas was disastrous. “They know nothing until the moment that the bulldozers turn up and start pushing down their houses.”
Loans, grants from Beijing
“If they protest, they get the full force of the state mechanism… suppressing their efforts to get their voices heard,” he added.

Hun Sen has banned illegal logging and called anarchic logging “the biggest mistake” of his political career, and his views have been backed up by anti-logging speeches by ministers, but with little apparent effect.

Chan Sophal said China’s interests in Cambodia were clear. “They help us, but they also look into the resources we have, such as mines, oil, gold, iron, and land.”

“They need land to grow agricultural and agro-industrial crops to meet the demands of the [China’s] population,” he added.There are other stories too which indicate that Chinese State and private Capital, at the behest of the government, take a neocolonialist relationship with local bureaucracies, corrupt them, and make them dependent on investment from their nation. They dump cheap Chinese imports which creates dependency for consumer goods, and it exploits cheap labor and poor environmental standards in the 3rd world to import goods back to China. That's similar in many respects to the Imperialist strategy the US takes.

The only good thing about Chinese Imperialism is that they are consciously less aggressive than the Americans because they know full well that there are people out there who won't recognize their "softer" approach as Imperialism against the more blatant and overt American and modern European model of Imperialism. I'm sure there are people who felt the same about American Imperialism in 1900 next to the more overt British, French, German, Turkish and Russian empires. But I know I wouldn't want to be a non-unionized exploited copper miner in rural Zambia, an unemployed Ethiopian who lost his subsistence farm to a corrupt Chinese state firm, or a Cambodian textile worker.


To that end, we dont engage in China bashing on popular bourgeois lines like 'Free Tibet' or 'massacre' at Tienamen Square and our view is to combat the fear and paranoia Americans seem to have about China and the PLA. China is a massive mixed bag, at one point the working class was really in control, now it is essentially the bourgeoisie. There are still State Owned Enterprises though, but they are dwindling fast. We'll see what happens at the next congress of the CPC.I find this sentiment to be frustrating. Any opposition to Chinese policies to the ethnic minorities or dissidents is written off as "bourgeois" ... it's not bourgeois when we complain about scott olsen getting shot in the face by pigs in America or mistreatment of indigenous populations, and it's not fucking bourgeois to complain about how a government should treat ethnic minorities or dissidents with a modicum of transparency and human rights in China too. You don't have to be bourgeois to say that maybe Tibetans have a right to argue or struggle for national or cultural rights and you don't have to be bourgeois to say that the Chinese state should not torture or kill dissidents, especially when "national liberation" and resistance to "abuse by the state" are things which Leftist groups treat as serious issues in places elsewhere in the world. Note that I'm not defending pre-50s Tibet or anything, it was obviously a feudal society, I'm just saying it's an ad hominem to say that the modern struggle for increased rights for Tibetans is "bourgeois" or that the Tibetans somehow needed Chinese paternalism to become a civilized, modern, industrial area.

The model that China uses is very similar to the model of early Victorian Britain. The comparison isn't perfect, because unlike Victorian Britain, China has very little national industry; most of their factories are owned by Koreans, Americans and Europeans.

Much of the "strategic" production is owned by the State or private capitalists with connections to the State, including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most productive steel companies in the world. The Chinese state also owns the biggest bank and many of the other largest corporations in the world. The private companies like many of the car companies have many connections to the bureaucracy and are heavily supported as well. In this respect, even though private enterprise dominates the Chinese economy the Chinese state is still a major player.

[RadioRaheem84]

So how would you describe the Chinese model?

[tir1944]

Capitalism with Chinese characteristics.;)

[blackandyellow]

I don't think that's a threat. This is another subject on which Zizek knows surprisingly little. The model that China uses is very similar to the model of early Victorian Britain. The comparison isn't perfect, because unlike Victorian Britain, China has very little national industry; most of their factories are owned by Koreans, Americans and Europeans. But in terms of democracy and worker's rights, it's extremely similar.

We didn't leave that system by accident. We steadily wrung concessions from the bourgeoisie, and they aren't going to disappear.

If we are going to use 19th century parallels, i think that Germany is a better example: An industrial late commer, in a world (or Germanys case continent) with a fully developed industrial/imperial power dominating (US now, Britain then), and the use of the state to push through industrialisation

i dont know though

[Agathor]

Victorian Britain wasn't as authoritarian as today's China. Otherwise, you wouldn't have the Chartist movement.

You're probably right. Victorian Britain was a little more politically developed than China is now. Which isn't surprising considering how recently the Chinese emerged from autocracy. However the Chartists were not allowed to practice freely. In 1842 most of their leaders were arrested and many were exiled to the colonies.

[Sendo]

You're probably right. Victorian Britain was a little more politically developed than China is now. Which isn't surprising considering how recently the Chinese emerged from autocracy. However the Chartists were not allowed to practice freely. In 1842 most of their leaders were arrested and many were exiled to the colonies.

I love this sort of history by racism. Democracy is not part of the Chinese character or history. Same bullshit spewn about the Middle East by people who don't know the first thing about Middle Eastern history after Jesus's death and before the 1960s. Democracy is a universal goal. It does not need to be developed, it spring up spontaneously. If you ignore false consciousness and fascism, people generally choose more freedom over less. It should be known that there is no constant known as "China." There were several nations that were largely independent of the Emperor, and many times when there was no recognized imperial dynasty.

Autocracy is not part of China. Society was far freer under Mao than now. Even the worst excesses of the GPCR were over after a few years.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe now the "revisionists" of the CCP can reunite with their estranged "Maoist" comrades like the MIM-ites since they all agree that the main problem is "parasitic first-world workers."

Full circle!

[Agathor]

I love this sort of history by racism. Democracy is not part of the Chinese character or history. Same bullshit spewn about the Middle East by people who don't know the first thing about Middle Eastern history after Jesus's death and before the 1960s. Democracy is a universal goal. It does not need to be developed, it spring up spontaneously. If you ignore false consciousness and fascism, people generally choose more freedom over less. It should be known that there is no constant known as "China." There were several nations that were largely independent of the Emperor, and many times when there was no recognized imperial dynasty.

Autocracy is not part of China. Society was far freer under Mao than now. Even the worst excesses of the GPCR were over after a few years.

Don't call me a racist, you ignorant twat.

You either distorted or misunderstood my point.

[Sendo]

Theres a difference between saying someone is racist and saying that something someone said racist.

It happens all the time. Leftists who support the struggles in India paint the place as one homogeneous Hindu entity. We are never in short supply of people who act like resistance to widow pyres in India or resistance to foot binding China are new concepts. Pity the poor Orientals and their inexperiences with civil rights, self determination, etc. Its not what you mean but it comes off that way.

Every time I get together with the Westerner expat community in Korea I hear the same condescension. Like Koreas failings in civil liberties come from a collective history of authoritarianism or Confucianism. The people arent racist but now and again they repeat tired mantras about X culture being Y because of Z history. Usually with the addendum that the West is better off for having the Montgomery bus boycott or something.

I could be talking out of my ass though. The Greeks invented denocracy and the founding fathers established the first State. based on democratic principles. Freedom is our heritage.