How did China develop so fast?

[Blanquist]

I can't find a Marxist explanation.

[theblackmask]

There is no Marxist explanation...only a capitalist one. Exploitation.

[Grenzer]

I can't find a Marxist explanation.

Really? It's pretty simple.

Influx of foreign capital.

[Bostana]

There is no Marxist explanation...only a capitalist one. Exploitation.

No such system was in China at the time of Mao.

It developed so fast because it followed proper Marxists theory (at the time of Mao's leadership) i.e. no corporations, dictatorship of the Proletariat, and so on and so forth
However now-a-days things are different. Reforms ruined the People's Republic and allowed corrupt businesses to take advantage of the Chinese worker. Such as GM, GE, and Walmart.

[A Marxist Historian]

There is no Marxist explanation...only a capitalist one. Exploitation.

Except that in the era of imperialism, capitalist exploitation doesn't move society forward, it pushes society backwards.

If capitalism is so great for China, why is it so bad for the USA, Europe, Japan and Africa and most of Latin America? Mexico just being one among many horrible examples?

And why are the peasants in India, the supposed other Third World country allegedly making great leaps and bounds, still starving and joining Maoist peasant revolts, and why is the urban population, except for the relatively small middle class, still living in garbage and shit?

If you could really make that much social progress through capitalist exploitation, then why the hell would we want to go to the trouble of making socialist revolution? People get killed in revolutions you know.

-M.H.-

[Red Rabbit]

It developed fast thanks to the aggressive industrialization under Mao Zedong. Similar to Russia's industrialization under Lenin and Stalin.


No such system was in China at the time of Mao.

Yes there was.


It developed so fast because it followed proper Marxists theory (at the time of Mao's leadership) i.e. no corporations, dictatorship of the Proletariat, and so on and so forth

China never had dictatorship of the Proletariat. Not even under Mao.


Except that in the era of imperialism, capitalist exploitation doesn't move society forward, it pushes society backwards.

If capitalism is so great for China, why is it so bad for the USA, Europe, Japan and Africa and most of Latin America? Mexico just being one among many horrible examples?

And why are the peasants in India, the supposed other Third World country allegedly making great leaps and bounds, still starving and joining Maoist peasant revolts, and why is the urban population, except for the relatively small middle class, still living in garbage and shit?

If you could really make that much social progress through capitalist exploitation, then why the hell would we want to go to the trouble of making socialist revolution? People get killed in revolutions you know.

-M.H.-

Capitalism can make a country develop much faster than feudalism.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Do you mean at the moment or X years ago?

[Bostana]

Yes there was

No there wasn't.

There was no corporations in China until the reforms, when Mao wasn't in office.

[Red Rabbit]

No there wasn't.

There was no corporations in China until the reforms, when Mao wasn't in office.

When did I say there was corporations? More than corporations can exploit the proletariat, you know.

[Dogs On Acid]

No there wasn't.

There was no corporations in China until the reforms, when Mao wasn't in office.

We are the 99%!

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that this is a very important question, though it's ambiguous in its current formulation (what exactly did develop and in what a way?).
I'm not altogether familiar with the details of Chinese social and economic history of the past four or so decades. But it seems to me that an explanation should include by all means the fact that China, along other countries, has an immense pool of labour available, and due to competition capital, be it Chinese or foreign, might find a very profitable workforce to exploit. And I think that happened in the aftermath of the 70s crisis when capital in the so called advanced countries went seeking for a cheaper, more docile workforce to exploit.

Incidentally, to illustrate the point about the pool of labour available, contemporary Chinese imperialism is very specific in that it not only exports capital but also the workers in tens of thousands: http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2008-09-01/chinese-imperialism-a-new-force-in-africa

[Bostana]

When did I say there was corporations? More than corporations can exploit the proletariat, you know.

True,
but the living conditions of China were improving and actually going p for the first time since who knows how long. They all had houses to live in. And trust me in the time of Mao there was no exploitation

[Bostana]

We are the 99%!

I am as well

[Red Rabbit]

True,
but the living conditions of China were improving and actually going p for the first time since who knows how long. They all had houses to live in.

This is true, there's no arguing that.


And trust me in the time of Mao there was no exploitation

No, there was still exploitation, it may not have been as bad as it was before, but it was still there. This is how China was able to develop and industrialize so fast.

[Ocean Seal]

There is no Marxist explanation...only a capitalist one. Exploitation.
This is stupid.

The reason that China developed so quickly isn't exploitation, as all capitalist countries are exploitative.

China developed quickly because Maoism is an extremely effective form of capitalism in the third world. The elimination of the foreign bourgeoisie bolstered the development of the means of production and brought much of the peasantry into the cities. Not only that but combined with its social democratic policies and industrial initiatives (GLF) it managed to create a thriving economy.

[Deicide]

And trust me in the time of Mao there was no exploitation

Do the piles of millions (estimates vary from 14 to 44 million) of dead bodies which resulted from the Great Leap Forward, that is, the terror-enforced social mobilisation of China, not count as ''exploitation''. There was also a high concentration of the chinese population in hard-labour camps, slaving away, at detrimental tasks, during Mao's era.

You should be a bit more clear on what you mean by ''exploitation''.

[Ocean Seal]

Do the piles of millions (estimates vary from 14 to 44 million) of dead bodies which resulted from the Great Leap Forward, that is, the terror-enforced social mobilisation of China, not count as ''exploitation''. There was also a high concentration of the chinese population in hard-labour camps, slaving away, at detrimental tasks, during Mao's era.

You should be a bit more clear on what you mean by ''exploitation''.
You don't need to evoke images of the poor Chinese slaving away while their counterparts in capitalists lived ever so freely. That's straight out of bourgeois propaganda. Extreme toil was present to a far greater extent before Mao, but
exploitation isn't about toiling, its an economic relationship. An economic relationship which existed before, during, and after Mao.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I've once argued with a Maoist that claimed the infrastructure built in his time is greatly responsibly for the boom after the revisionist period.

Do the piles of millions (estimates vary from 14 to 44 million) of dead bodies which resulted from the Great Leap Forward, that is, the terror-enforced social mobilisation of China, not count as ''exploitation''. There was also a high concentration of the chinese population in hard-labour camps, slaving away, at detrimental tasks, during Mao's era.

You should be a bit more clear on what you mean by ''exploitation''.
You call yourself a Marxist, but your citing Western sources... For some odd reason your adding up deaths during a famine, and pinning it on Mao. I expect this out of a Capitalist, not a Marxist.

Here are the death rates of China from 1949 through 1989.

http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Population/population-natural-growth-rate.jpg

Notice that Death Rates in most of his rule were under 10 per thousand. This was lower than in most Western countries.
Also, life expectancy went from 35 to 65 in his tenure.

[Bostana]

Do the piles of millions (estimates vary from 14 to 44 million) of dead bodies which resulted from the Great Leap Forward, that is, the terror-enforced social mobilisation of China, not count as ''exploitation''. There was also a high concentration of the chinese population in hard-labour camps, slaving away, at detrimental tasks, during Mao's era.

You should be a bit more clear on what you mean by ''exploitation''.

Have you been watching Fox News lately? Because it seems like you're quoting Glenn Beck.
I mean you do realize these numbers change everyday and are just ways for western media to gain support for anti-Communism.

But hey if you want to believe that whatever comes out of Glenn Beck's ad Rush Limbaugh's mouths that your problem

[Grenzer]

You call yourself a Marxist, but your citing Western sources... For some odd reason your adding up deaths during a famine, and pinning it on Mao. I expect this out of a Capitalist, not a Marxist.

Yet the deaths were the result of the same idiotic policy of forced collectivization that had proven to be so disastrous in the Soviet Union. The evidence was already quite clear on the matter, and that the Maoists undertook forced collectivization knowing full well that it would lead to the deaths of millions. It's difficult to deny Mao's agency and culpability. I have a hard time believing that forced collectivization would have taken place if he didn't want it to.

Stalin, on the other hand, can escape blame for the culpability of famine deaths as forced collectivization had never been tried and there was no way of knowing what the result would have been. Mao, on the other hand, has no excuse. He was an egomaniac who had zero regard for the lives of the Chinese people.

It's also stunningly hypocritical(though unsurprising, given that it's stalinists we're dealing with here) that you whine about someone using "anti-communist" sources when the only ones you are willing to use yourself are biased pro-Mao ones. You're not really in a position to be complaining about bias when objectivity is clearly very low on your list of priority.

A better question would be: How can you call yourself a Marxist while advocating Mao's comedically terrible doctrine of New Democracy, which advocates giving the bourgeoisie political power?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

No such system was in China at the time of Mao.

It developed so fast because it followed proper Marxists theory (at the time of Mao's leadership) i.e. no corporations, dictatorship of the Proletariat, and so on and so forth
However now-a-days things are different. Reforms ruined the People's Republic and allowed corrupt businesses to take advantage of the Chinese worker. Such as GM, GE, and Walmart.

LOL Bostana, i don't mean to burst your bubble, but Mao was trying to reach capitalism in China and said he "never read Das Kapital" of Marx. There WAS NO Dictatorship of the Proletariat, workers never had control over production and China was mostly a peasant society at the time. At the time that the non-marxist Mao did try to control the economy, it was a disaster, "The Great Leap Forward".

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

This is not to say though that i don't find the Chinese revolution one of the most interesting and biggest points in communist revolutionary history, it's just that revolutions in the third world are and cannot be marxist, i.e. from the ideas of Marx as marxism is the study of capitalism's dynamics and ultimate way to socialism. Although i don't believe so much in the philosophic parts of Marxism or the heavy dialectical parts of it really, the materialist aspect is certainly the most important. But again, China is only now really looking at the prospect of making the leap for socialism, according to marxist theory.

[Bostana]

LOL Bostana, i don't mean to burst your bubble, but Mao was trying to reach capitalism in China and said he "never read Das Kapital" of Marx. There WAS NO Dictatorship of the Proletariat, workers never had control over production and China was mostly a peasant society at the time. At the time that the non-marxist Mao did try to control the economy, it was a disaster, "The Great Leap Forward".

Mao was never trying to reach state Capitalism.

Even if he had never read Das Kapital, he has read just about every single Marxist writing. Mao wasn't just some guy who was picked out of a pile to lead the revolution.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Yet the deaths were the result of the same idiotic policy of forced collectivization that had proven to be so disastrous in the Soviet Union. The evidence was already quite clear on the matter, and that the Maoists undertook forced collectivization knowing full well that it would lead to the deaths of millions. It's difficult to deny Mao's agency and culpability. I have a hard time believing that forced collectivization would have taken place if he didn't want it to.

Just about any large-scale change in policy carries the risk of this type of famine, as they cause instability. I suppose if your a developed country you can escape this.

I haven't denied that people had died in the famines, rather I was denying Mao's responsibility. Simply look at the death rates and you'll see what I claimed. I admit that I disregard wester sources for this, and I will explain why.
I disregard them because it is an absurd notion that individuals are responsible for famines, which makes those arguments just attempts to discredit Mao.
I don't deny executions of nationalists during the revolution and afterwards, which my sources, which are western, put them at 4 million.

Please also stay on the topic of Mao. I also request that you not make fallacies or generalizations as you did in your last comment.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I feel forced to correct myself at this point after having read half of Comrade Mao's "Quotations". Mao was not trying to reach capitalism, he was a Marxist-Leninist trying to achieve socialism "State-Monopolist-Capitalism in the interest of the working class". This though does not change my opinion that a correct interpretation of Marx's class theory was never implemented in any ml state so far.

[Rafiq]

Non Isolated capitalism tends to function better than isolated socialism..

[Grenzer]

I feel forced to correct myself at this point after having read half of Comrade Mao's "Quotations". Mao was not trying to reach capitalism, he was a Marxist-Leninist trying to achieve socialism "State-Monopolist-Capitalism in the interest of the working class". This though does not change my opinion that a correct interpretation of Marx's class theory was never implemented in any ml state so far.

Regardless of what he was trying to reach, what they had was capitalism. It's also important to point out that state capitalism(in Lenin's terms, not Cliff's) is not and could never be socialism. State capitalism was simply supposed to be a transitory stage(to replace the bourgeois phase of development) in which capitalist relations existed, but the commanding heights of the economy were controlled by the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Relations of production were closely monitored to prevent the growth of the bourgeoisie, but this ended up being irrelevant as they ended up emerging from the ranks of the party whose duty was to prevent this happening in the first place.

In China, they never even eliminated the bourgeoisie and even allowed them into the party to some degree, which is why they capitulated to liberal capitalism so quickly in comparison to Russia. Lenin did later end up saying that socialism was state capitalism, but it was basically delusional nonsense that utterly contradicted his earlier statements, which are many, on the subject.

[Zulu]

I can't find a Marxist explanation.

http://org.elon.edu/ipe/f2%20hari%20sharma%20final.pdf

[Art Vandelay]

Mao was never trying to reach state Capitalism.

Even if he had never read Das Kapital, he has read just about every single Marxist writing. Mao wasn't just some guy who was picked out of a pile to lead the revolution.

Bostana I am not trying to start anything here, but I really think you need to do some more reading about your own tendency. Mao himself claimed to only be attempting to create capitalism and that it would be decades before socialism could be attempted.

[Yu Ming Zai]

I've once argued with a Maoist that claimed the infrastructure built in his time is greatly responsibly for the boom after the revisionist period.

I would like to reinforce this comment by saying that the economic programs during the 1949-1978 period established the preconditions for the post 1978 growth. In particular devastation from the GLF and its consequences afterward left a psychological wound upon the population of China that led to economic practices through improvised means on a local level based on self-reliance often independent of official state policies. As a result, the reactionary policies of Deng Xiaoping's economic liberation in the revisionist period were more or less based on already existing economic practices rather than higher up state initiatives.


The evidence was already quite clear on the matter, and that the Maoists undertook forced collectivization knowing full well that it would lead to the deaths of millions. It's difficult to deny Mao's agency and culpability. I have a hard time believing that forced collectivization would have taken place if he didn't want it to.

And what are these evidence that supports your claims?

[A Marxist Historian]

True,
but the living conditions of China were improving and actually going p for the first time since who knows how long. They all had houses to live in. And trust me in the time of Mao there was no exploitation

Depends on what you mean by "exploitation," as a moral or a scientific term. Scientifically speaking yes, but the Maoist regime was exceedingly brutal, and Maoist stupidity resulted in a huge famine and many millions of people dying in the late '50s, in almost exactly the same fashion as the infamous Ukrainian famine of the '30s, but on an even bigger scale.

Also, nowadays the Chinese standard of living, and I don't just mean the "average," I mean the standard of living of the workers and peasants, is much higher than under Mao.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Really? It's pretty simple.

Influx of foreign capital.

Um, you think China is the only place that's had an influx of foreign capital lately? How 'bout Mexico. Even huger influx of foreign capital, and not that much left in the way of feudalism in Mexico for that matter.

But the standard of living of the Mexican people is dropping like a rock, and in fact society is collapsing into mutual murder by drug gangs.

No, the reasons that, pretty much uniquely on planet earth, the standard of living of ordinary people is making tremendous strides in China are:

One, the struggles of Chinese workers and peasants, which the bureaucrats have made many concessions to lately;

and Two, that the Chinese state is not a capitalist state. China has a rapidly rising, ever more wealthy bourgeoisie, but they do not run People's China, unlike the vast majority of countries.

Instead, the CCP runs China, as a Bonapartist balancing act between the workers and peasants whose interests they claim to defend on the one hand, and the Chinese bourgeoisie whose rise the Dengists have favored, as well of course as the foreign imperialists.

China is still a non-capitalist state, independent of the capitalist class, which is why China was immune to the world financial catastrophe, since the banks in China are effectively state owned.

-M.H.-

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pretty simply:

China had a HUGE, unused pool of labour, huge swathes of land that were un-cultivated, and had a huge potential for catch-up with the other Capitalist economies.

Technology is endogenous - ergo, huge capital projects that used up the land supply and mobilised masses and masses of labour led to technology developing (or being imported!). It was really a perfect recipe for rapid growth.

Capitalism 101.

[A Marxist Historian]

Pretty simply:

China had a HUGE, unused pool of labour, huge swathes of land that were un-cultivated, and had a huge potential for catch-up with the other Capitalist economies.

Technology is endogenous - ergo, huge capital projects that used up the land supply and mobilised masses and masses of labour led to technology developing (or being imported!). It was really a perfect recipe for rapid growth.

Capitalism 101.

Every Third World country has a huge unused supply of labor these days. That's why cities in the Third World are swelling to gigantic sizes, with most of the population in the "informal economy," i.e. lumpenized.

As for huge swatches of land, one of the most marked features of Chinese growth has been the moving of hundreds of millions of people from the countryside to all the new cities. So there's probably less cultivated farmland now than under Mao, and agriculture has definitely *not* been the engine of China's economic growth.

It's true that the Chinese Revolution breaking the back of pre-capitalist relations, with the extirpation of the landlord class, cleared the way for capitalist as well as any other sort of development, but in this era that's only possible by breaking with capitalism. A French-style capitalist revolution is just not possible in the era of imperialism. The bourgeoisie everywhere is just too thoroughly under the thumbs of world imperialism.

Which China under Mao, obviously, was not. Although some individual bourgeois were demoralized enough to make their peace with Mao's China, mostly ending up getting killed or something in the Cultural Revolution-, the Chinese bourgeoisie as a class--fled to Taiwan.

Seeing Mao's regime as a "bourgeois regime" requires a truly remarkable talent at denying reality. And there really haven't been any fundamental changes in China since Mao died, still the same CCP running the place and the same PLA following its orders. Just a more right wing faction of Chinese Stalinism in command, that's all.

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

MH, if anything is remarkable around here it's your ability to masquerade your religion of Spartacism as actual politics, let alone anything remotely approaching scientific socialism.

The debate on China has been over for quite some time. Even many of the most virulent anti-communists admit that China is capitalist and that the modern Chinese state can no longer be held up as an example of "the totalitarian nature of communism". The only people that have failed to accept that simple reality are leftover museum relics of the Cold War such as yourself. Furthermore, I'm wondering if it's possible for you to ever disagree with someone as a rational adult, as opposed to a child. Take this phrase "Seeing Mao's regime as a "bourgeois regime" requires a truly remarkable talent at denying reality" for example. What the hell does that add to discussion? You actually managed to get banned from Red Marx after simply three posts for such behavior, which is quite the feat. You treat history and politics as a religion, not a science. You take your cue from the Spartacists, and then distort whatever facts you need to in order to back their positions up. Many people complain about the degree which some take dogmatism and repeating the party line like a zombie, but none that I have ever seen have taken it to such an extreme as you.

[wsg1991]

Notice that Death Rates in most of his rule were under 10 per thousand. This was lower than in most Western countries.
Also, life expectancy went from 35 to 65 in his tenure.[/QUOTE]

then this are most likely false numbers and destroys the credibility of any other resource you will bring from now ,
Mao cannot simply provide free health care and medical services to his population of the same because his country was a third world , and he was out of war

now you probably know how expensive medical equipment are + the very likely lack of doctors

what Mao can do is to prevent any malnutrition , aggressive healthcare system that encourage prevention , vaccination and probably some insects\ rats \swamp combat effort , to best use his available resources

such conditions and measures will greatly improve life expectancy but virtually impossible than '' was lower than in most Western countries'' who less population \ richer , and much more accumulated spending on health structure equipment thus naturally better health

now if you will point out to great advance in life expectancy i found that possible

if you going to point out how efficient his healthcare was , that could be reasonable as well

but saying better life expectancy than most western countries , that's plain bullshit




i suggest you don't argue with me a lot on healthcare

[Pheakdei]

I can't find a Marxist explanation.

China's development of today is the result of nothing but capitalism. Those who took over after Mao destroyed socialism and sold the nation, and the workers, out to western companies.

[A Marxist Historian]

MH, if anything is remarkable around here it's your ability to masquerade your religion of Spartacism as actual politics, let alone anything remotely approaching scientific socialism.

The debate on China has been over for quite some time. Even many of the most virulent anti-communists admit that China is capitalist and that the modern Chinese state can no longer be held up as an example of "the totalitarian nature of communism". The only people that have failed to accept that simple reality are leftover museum relics of the Cold War such as yourself. Furthermore, I'm wondering if it's possible for you to ever disagree with someone as a rational adult, as opposed to a child. Take this phrase "Seeing Mao's regime as a "bourgeois regime" requires a truly remarkable talent at denying reality" for example. What the hell does that add to discussion? You actually managed to get banned from Red Marx after simply three posts for such behavior, which is quite the feat. You treat history and politics as a religion, not a science. You take your cue from the Spartacists, and then distort whatever facts you need to in order to back their positions up. Many people complain about the degree which some take dogmatism and repeating the party line like a zombie, but none that I have ever seen have taken it to such an extreme as you.

My banning for Red Marx, as the banner admitted, had nothing whatsoever to do with my postings there, which he admitted were completely unobjectionable. He banned me 'cuz he didn't like my politics, not my postings. And said so, in so many words.

Plus, to do that he had to ascribe to me a whole bunch of things he'd invented out of his head, like me allegedly supporting Brezhnev in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

In short, he banned me because he is a mini-Stalin-style tinpot dictator and a bald-faced liar. There are excellent reasons why he and his crew were thrown off Revleft, and none of them are missed.

As for the entire world saying that China is capitalist, well, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Up till the 2008 crash, that was indeed the overoptimistic opinion of most bourgeois commentators. Now, it isn't anymore. You read the New York Times or whatnot, and they are calling it a "mixed economy," and hoping for the rising bourgeoisie to overthrow the communists and bring in "freedom."

You, like all too many leftists, take your opinions from the bourgeois media. But even there, you are behind the times.

And right now, with Obama and the Europeans trying to whip up an anti-communist crusade vs. China, even despite the US being in debt to China up to its heels, "state capitalism" is pretty obviously just a useful ideology for the imperialists in the service of actual capitalist restoration in China.

Lastly, I believe in telling the truth, no matter who it offends. And seeing Mao's China as capitalist really does require a remarkable talent at denying reality. It's not my fault that some folk here have such a talent.

-M.H.-

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Every Third World country has a huge unused supply of labor these days. That's why cities in the Third World are swelling to gigantic sizes, with most of the population in the "informal economy," i.e. lumpenized.

As for huge swatches of land, one of the most marked features of Chinese growth has been the moving of hundreds of millions of people from the countryside to all the new cities. So there's probably less cultivated farmland now than under Mao, and agriculture has definitely *not* been the engine of China's economic growth.

It's true that the Chinese Revolution breaking the back of pre-capitalist relations, with the extirpation of the landlord class, cleared the way for capitalist as well as any other sort of development, but in this era that's only possible by breaking with capitalism. A French-style capitalist revolution is just not possible in the era of imperialism. The bourgeoisie everywhere is just too thoroughly under the thumbs of world imperialism.

Which China under Mao, obviously, was not. Although some individual bourgeois were demoralized enough to make their peace with Mao's China, mostly ending up getting killed or something in the Cultural Revolution-, the Chinese bourgeoisie as a class--fled to Taiwan.

Seeing Mao's regime as a "bourgeois regime" requires a truly remarkable talent at denying reality. And there really haven't been any fundamental changes in China since Mao died, still the same CCP running the place and the same PLA following its orders. Just a more right wing faction of Chinese Stalinism in command, that's all.

-M.H.-

During Mao was there not a great deal of extra agriculture that took place? I don't have a great knowledge of the period, but I know some stuff.

So tell me, during Mao's period: was there a state? Was there money? Were there classes? If so, then how could it have been anything other than,again, a form of State-run Capitalism?

[Yu Ming Zai]

Maoist stupidity resulted in a huge famine and many millions of people dying in the late '50s.

Are you suggesting that the GLF was inherently flawed? If so, can you explained alittle bit more on what the basis of this Maoist "stupidity" are you claiming off of?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So tell me, during Mao's period: was there a state? Was there money? Were there classes? If so, then how could it have been anything other than,again, a form of State-run Capitalism?

But he thinks modern china is socialist, so I'm pretty sure AMH's standards for what makes capitalism just that are a bit off, to put it kindly.

[Rafiq]

Depends on what you mean by "exploitation," as a moral or a scientific term. Scientifically speaking yes, but the Maoist regime was exceedingly brutal, and Maoist stupidity resulted in a huge famine and many millions of people dying in the late '50s, in almost exactly the same fashion as the infamous Ukrainian famine of the '30s, but on an even bigger scale.

Also, nowadays the Chinese standard of living, and I don't just mean the "average," I mean the standard of living of the workers and peasants, is much higher than under Mao.

-M.H.-

-Claims to be a Marxist

-Attributes famines to "stupidity"

Wow

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Die Neue Zeit]

Every Third World country has a huge unused supply of labor these days. That's why cities in the Third World are swelling to gigantic sizes, with most of the population in the "informal economy," i.e. lumpenized.

But the proletarian demographic minorities or even the so-called "industrial proletariat" amongst them are in no position to assume class rule without engaging in civil war with everyone else.

[ComradeOm]

Um, you think China is the only place that's had an influx of foreign capital lately? How 'bout Mexico. Even huger influx of foreign capital, and not that much left in the way of feudalism in Mexico for that matterWhat are you talking about? Foreign Direct Investment into China in 2010, for example, was ten times that of Mexico (http://greyhill.com/fdi-by-country/). It's an entirely different league altogether

But then capital investment is only part of the story. The PRC government has committed to a programme of industrial growth and has been careful in directing capital into the various key sectors needed to obtain this. It's a state-driven course of national industrialisation. The local ruling class is actually investing wisely rather than squandering the capital at their disposal

(This is of course not a unique feat. It's rare that a local bourgeoisie prioritises long term growth but certainly not unheard of. Every country that has successfully made the transition to industrial society has done so to some degree. In Asia alone China only need look at the bourgeoisie in Japan, S Korea and Singapore, for example)

[A Marxist Historian]

China's development of today is the result of nothing but capitalism. Those who took over after Mao destroyed socialism and sold the nation, and the workers, out to western companies.

So, since China is now far, far ahead of where it was under Mao, you think then that capitalism is better for developing the nation than socialism?

Me, I disagree. I think socialism is a good idea, not a bad one.

Of course China wasn't "socialist" under Mao any more than it is now. You can't build socialism in one country. It had however broken out from the class rule of the Chinese capitalist/landlord class, making possible some socialistic measures and the forward development of China, unlike most Third World countries which, if they haven't gotten special favoritism from their imperialist masters, decline in this era of imperialism, they don't develop forward.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

During Mao was there not a great deal of extra agriculture that took place? I don't have a great knowledge of the period, but I know some stuff.

So tell me, during Mao's period: was there a state? Was there money? Were there classes? If so, then how could it have been anything other than,again, a form of State-run Capitalism?

During Mao's period? I thought we were talking about now.

OK, back to Mao's period. Was there a state? Yes. Are all states capitalist states? No, not if you follow Marx and Lenin's ideas.

Were there classes? Yes, there was a working class and a peasantry. But was there a capitalist class? Was there a landlord class? No. The landlords had been mostly killed, the capitalists had mostly fled to Taiwan.

Was there money? Well, how are we defining money today? In Marx's terms, money is the universal equivalent. The Chinese currency was not that, as it was not recognized outside China, and could not be used to purchase means of production. So the Chinese currency was not, in technical Marxist terms, really money.

Which is more than a technicality, as somebody who accumulated a lot of Chinese currency *could not,* under Mao, turn it into capital. So the economnic system under Mao was not a capitalist system.

Now of course they can. There is definitely a Chinese capitalist class now, and its power and influence in China is steadily rising. But it does not control China, in fact it is somewhat of an "oppressed" class, as the Western newspapers continually complain, without any of the control over the regime that American capitalists have over the American government. The CCP pushes it around whenever it feels like it, and quite frequently arrests and even executes rich capitalists when scapegoats are needed for disasters like the milk poisoning scandal of a few years ago.

So whatever the Chinese state is, it is not a capitalist state, it is not beholden to the Chinese capitalist class.

Its origins were in the Chinese Revolution, and its claim to power is its claim to be the representative of the Chinese people vs. the old ways in China. And it has defended and forwarded the interests of the once tiny Chinese proletariat, by industrializing China, once an entirely peasant country.

It balances between the working class and the peasants on the one hand and the rising bourgeoisie on the other. Which is why when workers go on strike, it is capable of granting them large concessions, as it is not dependent on the capitalists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

But he thinks modern china is socialist, so I'm pretty sure AMH's standards for what makes capitalism just that are a bit off, to put it kindly.

China socialist? You can't build socialism in one country.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

-Claims to be a Marxist

-Attributes famines to "stupidity"

Wow

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Are famines under capitalism due to stupidity? Well, sometimes maybe, but mostly due to the economic workings of capitalism.

Are famines due to incredibly, grossly poor planning, like the Ukrainian famine under Stalin and the great famine in China during the "Great Leap Forward" due to stupidity? Yes.

This is especially clear in China, as if the policies advocated by top party leader Deng Hsiao-Ping, Mao's rival, had been followed, there would have been no famine. So yes, the famine was caused by Mao Tse-Tung's blind stupidity. Had he listened to the other party leaders, some twenty million lives would have been saved.

Not the least reason why workers and peasants were not inclined to resist when the Maoists were replaced by the Dengists.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

What are you talking about? Foreign Direct Investment into China in 2010, for example, was ten times that of Mexico (http://greyhill.com/fdi-by-country/). It's an entirely different league altogether

But then capital investment is only part of the story. The PRC government has committed to a programme of industrial growth and has been careful in directing capital into the various key sectors needed to obtain this. It's a state-driven course of national industrialisation. The local ruling class is actually investing wisely rather than squandering the capital at their disposal

(This is of course not a unique feat. It's rare that a local bourgeoisie prioritises long term growth but certainly not unheard of. Every country that has successfully made the transition to industrial society has done so to some degree. In Asia alone China only need look at the bourgeoisie in Japan, S Korea and Singapore, for example)

An elementary arithmetic blunder on your part. Was the foreign investment into China something vaguely resembling (varying from year to year) ten times that in Mexico? Yes.

And the population of China is, guess what, some eight to ten times the population of Mexico!

And in China, unlike Japan, South Korea and Singapore (which isn't a country at all, it's just an island enclave), the banks and heavy industry, the key sectors of the economy, are all state-owned. Private capitalism in China, at least until very recently, has been for export, to fill up the shelves at Wal-Mart. Really, secondary to the economy of China as a country, which is about China, not about Wal-Mart. Not decisive in understanding the class nature of Chinese society.

-M.H.-

[Yu Ming Zai]

This is especially clear in China, as if the policies advocated by top party leader Deng Hsiao-Ping, Mao's rival, had been followed, there would have been no famine. So yes, the famine was caused by Mao Tse-Tung's blind stupidity. Had he listened to the other party leaders, some twenty million lives would have been saved.

I will ask again and hope you can answer this time; you keep talking about Mao Tse-tung's "stupdity" as if his policy for the GLF was inherently flawed in the first place but you never expand on what exactly this "stupidity" was. Can you pinpoint exactly what you are referring to? Because I would like to correct this common misconception about the GLF.

[ComradeOm]

An elementary arithmetic blunder on your part. Was the foreign investment into China something vaguely resembling (varying from year to year) ten times that in Mexico? Yes.

And the population of China is, guess what, some eight to ten times the population of Mexico!And? FDI per capita would be a useful indicator if every person was expected to open their own factory. Industrial development is however absolute - a large industrial base in a predominately peasant country is still a large industrial base. Particularly so given the uneven spatial development of capitalism in China


And in China, unlike Japan, South Korea and Singapore (which isn't a country at all, it's just an island enclave), the banks and heavy industry, the key sectors of the economy, are all state-ownedYes, it's called dirigisme. China is not at all unique in this way, just perhaps a more extreme example

[Rusty Shackleford]

industrialization efforts after the revolution. , unification and sovereignty, and then the capitalist reforms and yes, the influx of foreign capital.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

China socialist? You can't build socialism in one country.

-M.H.-

So you've finally come to realise that it is capitalist, or do are you still under some bizarre confused idea that though not socialist it's also not capitalist because the state still owns a few major sector-dominating companies?

[StockholmSyndrome]

So, since China is now far, far ahead of where it was under Mao, you think then that capitalism is better for developing the nation than socialism?

Me, I disagree. I think socialism is a good idea, not a bad one.

Of course China wasn't "socialist" under Mao any more than it is now. You can't build socialism in one country. It had however broken out from the class rule of the Chinese capitalist/landlord class, making possible some socialistic measures and the forward development of China, unlike most Third World countries which, if they haven't gotten special favoritism from their imperialist masters, decline in this era of imperialism, they don't develop forward.

-M.H.-

Marxist historiography is not concerned with the evaluation of "good" vs "bad" ideas, unless under the context of whether certain policy measures efficiently meet the needs of some ruling class. Likewise, socialism is not concerned with the historical development of the productive forces of society, it is about their expropriation and transformation by the working class to meet social needs. We are not communists or socialists because we think it is a "good idea".

[nazi125]

I am not an expert but i can say that main reason for the progress of China is the huge man power and the tax facilities from Govt. of China..

[A Marxist Historian]

I will ask again and hope you can answer this time; you keep talking about Mao Tse-tung's "stupdity" as if his policy for the GLF was inherently flawed in the first place but you never expand on what exactly this "stupidity" was. Can you pinpoint exactly what you are referring to? Because I would like to correct this common misconception about the GLF.

What was stupid about it? That it resulted in millions of peasants starving to death.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Marxist historiography is not concerned with the evaluation of "good" vs "bad" ideas, unless under the context of whether certain policy measures efficiently meet the needs of some ruling class. Likewise, socialism is not concerned with the historical development of the productive forces of society, it is about their expropriation and transformation by the working class to meet social needs. We are not communists or socialists because we think it is a "good idea".

This is absolutely wrong and anti-Marxist. The reason that Marx became a socialist is because he understood that socialism was necessary to continue the historical development of the productive forces of society, which capitalism developed up to a certain point, but now has created a barrier to. And in fact is now destroying human society, as anybody can see.

Marx explains this quite clearly in the Communist Manifesto.

That is why he decided that the communists were right, and that the expropriation of the capitalists and the transformation of society by the working class, the only class in society whose class interests, scientifically understood, require socialist transformation.

Otherwise he would have remained what he originally was, a left bourgeois liberal philosopher, and not have become a communist.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

And? FDI per capita would be a useful indicator if every person was expected to open their own factory. Industrial development is however absolute - a large industrial base in a predominately peasant country is still a large industrial base. Particularly so given the uneven spatial development of capitalism in China

Yes, it's called dirigisme. China is not at all unique in this way, just perhaps a more extreme example

Uh? We are not talking about "indicators" with weird initials. We are talking about the relative weight of foreign investment between two countries, one of which has eight to ten times the size of the population of the other--but which otherwise are more or less the same kind of countries, socially speaking. Or rather, were, before the Chinese Revolution of 1949, which totally transformed China.

Before the Chinese Revolution, Mexico was considerably more industrially advanced than China, and isocially too. Afterwards, the reverse became the case, as everybody knows.

Both countries are a hell of a lot more urban than they used to be, except that in China you've had a bona fide industrial revolution and social transformation, whereas in Mexico it's more like peasants driven off their land by NAFTA and becoming lumpenized in vastly overgrown Mexico City, rather than becoming proletarians.

Comparing investment there now merely numerically in grand totals, ignoring that one of them has eight to ten times the population, and is physically far bigger too, is ridiculous. An example of the old line that statistics don't lie, but liars do statistics.

As for "dirigisme," there is, as you no doubt recall, a point at which quantity turns into quality.

"Dirigiste" state capitalist measures in capitalist countries are for the benefit of the capitalist ruling class. State planning to make sure that the capitalist rulers can have industry and workers to exploit. Once it gets going, privatized for the benefit of the ruling class, usually for a song.

In China, the old bourgeoisie, and more to the point the old landlords, the true ruling class in such a thoroughly peasant country, were expropriated, many fled to Taiwan, and literally millions of landlords were turned into peasants or simply killed. The Chinese capitalist class was either driven to Taiwan or Hong Kong or simply destroyed.

You have a new capitalist class now, but they are simply not the same as the Chinese state bureaucracy, with whom they are in ever growing conflict, with Chinese capitalists increasingly calling for "democracy." The CCP bureaucracy balances in Bonapartist fashion between the workers and peasants, whose interests they claim to uphold, and the new bourgeoisie and the foreign imperialists.

The basis of the power of the CCP is the Revolution of 1949, a largely peasant revolution which destroyed the landlord class and, since the peasantry is not a social class and cannot rule society, put the petty bourgeois Stalinist guerillas in power, who created a society modeled after the USSR, a bureaucratically degenerated workers state.

You still have essentially the same CCP in power that you did in the year 1949, with direct continuity in every important fashion. So, unless you believe, in glaring contradiction to obvious facts, that China was a capitalist country under Mao, it can't be a capitalist country now, no matter how many pro-capitalist measures the CCP undertakes.

The USSR went capitalist when the CPUSSR was overthrown and banned, and even the USSR itself ceased to exist. For China to really go capitalist, a counterrevolution, as in the USSR or Eastern Europe, would be necessary.

-M.H.-

[StockholmSyndrome]

This is absolutely wrong and anti-Marxist. The reason that Marx became a socialist is because he understood that socialism was necessary to continue the historical development of the productive forces of society, which capitalism developed up to a certain point, but now has created a barrier to. And in fact is now destroying human society, as anybody can see.

Marx explains this quite clearly in the Communist Manifesto.

That is why he decided that the communists were right, and that the expropriation of the capitalists and the transformation of society by the working class, the only class in society whose class interests, scientifically understood, require socialist transformation.

Otherwise he would have remained what he originally was, a left bourgeois liberal philosopher, and not have become a communist.

-M.H.-

Sorry, I should have said socialism is not concerned with the capitalist development of the capitalist productive forces of society, which you are saying it is. We are not talking about Marx's conception of the transition from capitalism to socialism. We are talking about capitalist development within the global capitalist system, which can only be capitalist. Even you said there cannot be socialism in one country.

Your inane argument is essentially that only through "socialism" or "socialistic measures" can developing countries "develop" their national capital in this era of imperialism. So what is it then? "Degenerated worker's state" is a defunct and meaningless made up term. "Mixed economy" is a bourgeois term that means nothing. It is capitalism. Do you really believe that China is not capitalist? In this era of imperialism, the only way to move beyond the capitalist mode of production is the global expropriation of the means of production by the international working class.

[A Marxist Historian]

Sorry, I should have said socialism is not concerned with the capitalist development of the capitalist productive forces of society, which you are saying it is. We are not talking about Marx's conception of the transition from capitalism to socialism. We are talking about capitalist development within the global capitalist system, which can only be capitalist. Even you said there cannot be socialism in one country.

Your inane argument is essentially that only through "socialism" or "socialistic measures" can developing countries "develop" their national capital in this era of imperialism. So what is it then? "Degenerated worker's state" is a defunct and meaningless made up term. "Mixed economy" is a bourgeois term that means nothing. It is capitalism. Do you really believe that China is not capitalist? In this era of imperialism, the only way to move beyond the capitalist mode of production is the global expropriation of the means of production by the international working class.

The productive forces of society are not "capitalist" or "socialist" or "feudalist" or anything else, they are the productive forces of society. "National capital" is a meaningless term from the standpoint of Marxist theory, though convenient enough for bourgeois economists I suppose.

What's China? It's a transitional society in between socialism and capitalism, which its currupt Stalinist bureaucracy is pushing back towards capitalism. It has private capitalist elements, a growing capitalist class, and it also has a large state sector, which, unlike the private sector, does not necessarily operate according to the fashion described by Karl Marx in his books on capitalism.

Said state sector does not operate according to "the invisible hand" of Adam Smith, the laws of capitalism, but according to--how the Chinese Communist Party wants it to operate. So China has a highly contradictory and unstable economic system in a highly contradictory and unstable society, that sooner or later will explode into class struggle between the powerful Chinese bourgeoisie and the even more powerful and rapidly growing Chinese working class.

When that struggle explodes, the Stalinist Chinese state bureaucracy will pop like a balloon, like the USSR did in 1991. But hopefully not in that one-sided fashion, as the Chinese working class is not as demoralized as the Soviet working class was--and is.

You are absolutely right that the only way to start to move beyond capitalism is by expropriating the ruling classes by armed force. That is what happened in China in 1949, as any Taiwanese capitalist or landlord refugee from the revolution would be delighted to explain to you.

Is doing this on a global basis necessary to construct a genuinely socialist society? Yes. But can people in one country at least get started on this process without waiting first for everyone else to do it at the same time?

I sure hope so, as otherwise it can never happen, fuggedabouddit.

-M.H.-

[StockholmSyndrome]

The productive forces of society are not "capitalist" or "socialist" or "feudalist" or anything else, they are the productive forces of society.

Ok sure, but the "forces of production" exist at any point in time inside a specific historical mode of production and can therefore be described as the "feudal forces of production" as in "the forces of production which existed during the period we call feudalism", or the "capitalist forces of production" as in "the forces of production which exist in the current epoch which we call capitalism". While the "productive forces" in the general sense of the term are developing under a given mode of production, it can be said that they are the "feudal" or "capitalist" or "socialist" forces of production. Sometimes something will be specific to a mode of production. For example, in capitalism, capital (accumulated dead labor) itself becomes a force of production (M-C-M), taking on a life of its own. However, this is all irrelevant and you have successfully trapped me into arguing semantics and ignored my entire point. Simply put, it is not the duty of Marxists to be capitalists, to try to force history down people's throats, or to carry out national bourgeois revolutions.


"National capital" is a meaningless term from the standpoint of Marxist theory, though convenient enough for bourgeois economists(italics added)....

The bourgeois economic mindset is exactly what we are talking about...

[A Marxist Historian]

Ok sure, but the "forces of production" exist at any point in time inside a specific historical mode of production and can therefore be described as the "feudal forces of production" as in "the forces of production which existed during the period we call feudalism", or the "capitalist forces of production" as in "the forces of production which exist in the current epoch which we call capitalism". While the "productive forces" in the general sense of the term are developing under a given mode of production, it can be said that they are the "feudal" or "capitalist" or "socialist" forces of production. Sometimes something will be specific to a mode of production. For example, in capitalism, capital (accumulated dead labor) itself becomes a force of production (M-C-M), taking on a life of its own. However, this is all irrelevant and you have successfully trapped me into arguing semantics and ignored my entire point. Simply put, it is not the duty of Marxists to be capitalists, to try to force history down people's throats, or to carry out national bourgeois revolutions.

And in fact in China, in the state sector, it is C-M-C not M-C-M that is the relevant formula. Production is still decided by the CCP for, primarily at least, social utility not private profit. As the CCP is incredibly corrupt, that is not always the case. Which is why corruption and protest against corruption is such a key issue in China, both for the masses and even for the CCP itself in its internal struggles.

That's why the Chinese "stimulus package" worked, whereas Obama's didn't. Because considerations of profit for capitalists are simply not the decisive factor in the Chinese economy. So the CCP could get the economy going again by building lots of badly needed infrastructure, because it simply didn't matter if a "profit" on the M-C-M model was being obtained or not.

Whereas Keynesian methods in a capitalist economy simply don't work, which is why Keynesianism had been rejected by bourgeois economists for other fantasies, until their recent very partial resurrection out of desperation

It is definitely not the duty of Marxists to be capitalists. And that is the single worst thing about the policies of the CCP, that there are in fact members of the CCP, often sons of old party leaders, who are indeed private capitalists.

But to you, it seems as if developing a country, urbanizing, creating industrial resources enabling the people to live better, is "capitalist." And that's the real argument between us, getting away from word definitions.

History doesn't need to be forced down anyone's throats, it happens whether you want it to or not. And in this era, as Lenin explained so long ago, we have the final stage of capitalism, imperialist monopoly capitalism. The monopolies have just gotten ever bigger and bigger since Lenin's time, now you have international corporations owning everything, and banks owning the corporations. Lenin's model on steroids.

And in this era, society can't progress without overthrowing the capitalists. Instead, it regresses towards barbarism.

That China is progressing, and not just progressing a little but a whole lot, pretty much proves it's not capitalist right then and there.

As for national bourgeois revolutions, well, we can have national revolutions, we do have national revolutions, and in most of the world the "bourgeois" tasks of rescuing society from pre-capitalist barbarism can only be gotten done through a *proletarian* revolution, as the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class.

You may not want to worry about that stuff, but guess what, the masses most certainly do.

I am just paraphrasing Trotsky's "theory of permanent revolution," which you should check out.




The bourgeois economic mindset is exactly what we are talking about...

I have what I have to say about said mindset above. You're the one trapped in it, not me. You think you are rebelling against it, but you're not. Rather you are taking the word of the bourgeois economists that the "free market" is the way to get economic progress, and just saying, to hell with economic progress.

Well, they are wrong, and you are wrong to basically agree with them.

-M.H.-

[Thirsty Crow]

I've come accross two articles on the development of China from the Aufheben group and would definitely recommend them, though not for those holding the opinion that by some act of magic China has been developing as a non-capitalist social formation:

http://libcom.org/library/aufheben/aufheben-14-2006/welcome-to-the-chinese-century

http://libcom.org/library/class-conflicts-transformation-china

[StockholmSyndrome]

But to you, it seems as if developing a country, urbanizing, creating industrial resources enabling the people to live better, is "capitalist." And that's the real argument between us, getting away from word definitions.

I did not say that "developing a country" is capitalist. I said that developing capitalism is capitalist.


That China is progressing, and not just progressing a little but a whole lot, pretty much proves it's not capitalist right then and there.

Huh? You seem to be engaging in the worst kind of dishonest and purely absurd tautological nonsense here.


As for national bourgeois revolutions, well, we can have national revolutions, we do have national revolutions, and in most of the world the "bourgeois" tasks of rescuing society from pre-capitalist barbarism can only be gotten done through a *proletarian* revolution, as the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class.

You may not want to worry about that stuff, but guess what, the masses most certainly do.

I am just paraphrasing Trotsky's "theory of permanent revolution," which you should check out.

Great.


I have what I have to say about said mindset above. You're the one trapped in it, not me. You think you are rebelling against it, but you're not. Rather you are taking the word of the bourgeois economists that the "free market" is the way to get economic progress, and just saying, to hell with economic progress.

Again, I say huh? I think it is you who has adopted the bourgeois dichotomy of "free market vs command economy". I am not concerned with what is the best strategy for managing capitalism. And I have never said "to hell with economic progress." You seem to lack a very basic understanding of dialectics.

[A Marxist Historian]

I did not say that "developing a country" is capitalist. I said that developing capitalism is capitalist.

Um, yeah, but what do you mean when you say "developing capitalism"?" Presumably you don't mean developing the ideology of capitalism?

Capitalism isn't something that "develops" as such. It isn't production, it is merely a mode of production. The capitalist mode of production can develop within a society based on some other mode of production, such as feudalism, or the capitalist development now going on within basically non-capitalist China. It does not, in and of itself, "develop." Now, the forces of production, they develop--or not.

We have to get rid of capitalism, because whereas up until the twentieth century capitalism was a mode that helped to develop the productive forces, but now, in the era of imperialism, it no longer does. It destroys them, and destroys people too. Pushes society into depressions, wars, ethnic hatred and mutual murder, etc. etc. Now it's gotten to the Katrina point, where under capitalism you can't even rebuild a city that has suffered a natural disaster, but instead they just let most of it rot.



Huh? You seem to be engaging in the worst kind of dishonest and purely absurd tautological nonsense here.

Great.

Again, I say huh? I think it is you who has adopted the bourgeois dichotomy of "free market vs command economy". I am not concerned with what is the best strategy for managing capitalism. And I have never said "to hell with economic progress." You seem to lack a very basic understanding of dialectics.

Who said anything about a "command economy"? That is truly a bourgeois ideological expression, because bourgeois economists are incapable of conceiving of any sort of collectivized economy other than one run by a narrow elite group like the Soviet bureaucracy, "commanding" the people. Why? Because they have contempt for the working class. That you think in those terms proves that you are under the sway of bourgeois economic thinking.

The Soviet Union was not capitalist. No stock market, no corporations, no private property in the means of production, no capitalist class period. No unemployment! A capitalist system without unemployment is not at all like anything Marx would consider capitalist. So managing the Soviet economy was not, as you seem to think, "managing capitalism," whatever you actually mean by that, which is not at all clear.

-M.H.-

[Qavvik]

.

[A Marxist Historian]

Said like a true Trot. How about you give a few real examples of Mao's "social democratic policies" so we can all see them? Perhaps Maoism according to the CPC's post-Mao dogma fits your definition, but Mao was one hell of a Marxist when compared to Trotsky.

Whatever are Ocean Seal's politics, it is unfair to blame Trotsky for them. He spent much of the last decade of his life arguing vs. various Social Democrats and alleged "Trotskyists" that the USSR was not capitalist. And, since China under Mao was basically similar to the USSR under Stalin, any "Trotskyist" who claims China was "capitalist" then is operating under false pretenses.

As for Mao being one helluva Marxist, well, look what happened to China when he died. Some legacy to leave behind...

He sure as hell was no brilliant Marxist economist, his "Great Leap Forward" led to millions of peasants starving to death.

Not to mention inviting Nixon to China, scabbing on the Vietnamese, supporting Pinochet in Chile, etc. etc.

Mao was just another bureaucrat, and his pseudo imitation Marxism, "Mao Tse Tung Thought," is very hard to take seriously. He was just another Stalinist, only real difference being that when Stalin talked about "socialism in one country" he meant Russia, whereas Mao meant China.

Anybody serious about Maoism should take a look at what happened with the Maoist Communist Party of Indonesia, once the largest Communist Party in the capitalist world, who followed Mao's line right into the execution chambers.

Or Nepal, if you want something more recent, where the Maoists have gone capitalist, in best "Khrushchev revisionist" stye." And have split into innumerable quarreling parties, who probably will be shooting at each other soon, if the Nepalese army doesn't lock them all up and kill them first.

-M.H.-

[Qavvik]

.

[Yu Ming Zai]

He sure as hell was no brilliant Marxist economist, his "Great Leap Forward" led to millions of peasants starving to death.

The economic rationale for the GLF was based on orthodox mainstream economics here, not Marxian theory or whatever. China at the time was low on arable land and capital, but high in labor. What they tried to do was simple, to use the potential surplus of labor to improve productivity and establish rural infrastructure and local industries. Local industries would be able to improve capital stock, provide necessary inputs for crop production like fertilizers and certain infrastructure such as irrigation which would improve productivity as well as total arable land.

The economic policy was sound. The main failures of it wasn't inherent in the program itself but was due to logistical problems such as misrepresentation of crop yields by lower officials and faulty design of storage facilities that wasted away the food stored in it along with natural problems such as droughts and flooding which were unnaturally severe at the time. So one can't really argue that the GLF was inherently flawed or incredibly stupid because it was formulated on sound economics and Mao Tse-tung's intent was good.

However you can argue about the various social impact of the economic reform that created reactionary elements within the peasantry as well as Party members that propelled communes to act beyond the initial intent of the Party due to the alienation created from certain actions of the local Party members around the country that contributed to the intensification of the devastation of the GLF later on. However that topic is for a different time as I just wanted to address the problem of people labeling the GLF as inherently flawed or incredibly stupid.

[m1omfg]

Or Nepal, if you want something more recent, where the Maoists have gone capitalist, in best "Khrushchev revisionist" stye." And have split into innumerable quarreling parties, who probably will be shooting at each other soon, if the Nepalese army doesn't lock them all up and kill them first.

-M.H.-

More like Yeltsin style. Khruschev USSR was still a planned economy that actually had a far better standard of living than under Stalin unlike Nepal which went straight into the free market.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Capitalism isn't something that "develops" as such. It isn't production, it is merely a mode of production. The capitalist mode of production can develop within a society based on some other mode of production, such as feudalism, or the capitalist development now going on within basically non-capitalist China.

You just said capitalism doesn't "develop", and then you said it does. In a single paragraph.



Who said anything about a "command economy"? That is truly a bourgeois ideological expression, because bourgeois economists are incapable of conceiving of any sort of collectivized economy other than one run by a narrow elite group like the Soviet bureaucracy, "commanding" the people. Why? Because they have contempt for the working class. That you think in those terms proves that you are under the sway of bourgeois economic thinking.

You don't really pay attention to what I am saying, you just find ways to spin things around and divert the focus of discussion. You aren't really saying anything, just blabbering.


The Soviet Union was not capitalist. No stock market, no corporations, no private property in the means of production, no capitalist class period. No unemployment! A capitalist system without unemployment is not at all like anything Marx would consider capitalist. So managing the Soviet economy was not, as you seem to think, "managing capitalism," whatever you actually mean by that, which is not at all clear.

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben-part-4

Marx lived in the 1800s. He knew there would be many developments and counterbalancing tendencies which he could not foresee, and just because he would not have been exposed to something in his time, doesn't mean it's not capitalism. He did not create a rigid system, but rather a way of seeing history as a constantly unfolding, dynamic and fluid process. That you don't understand this and say things like "Marx would not have considered that capitalism!" is alarming. Also that you would characterize bourgeois political economics as an attitude, or what "individuals are capable of conceiving", or simply "contempt for the working class" is very idealistic, moralistic and, I hate to sound like a disciple, but anti-Marxist.

[Deicide]

No unemployment!

Actually there was unemployment, as in people not working, in the Great Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Alcoholics (and other drug addicts) tended to be unemployed (for obvious reasons). They used to go around drinking all day and begging and stealing instead of working. They still do actually.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Actually there was unemployment in the Great Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Alcoholics tended to be unemployed. They used to go around begging and stealing instead of working. They still do actually.

"People between jobs" were also counted - and this was often a rate of upwards 1,8 to 2.5%, and this number excluded other unemployed (homeless people, often with mental illness; of which there was a fair number and little was ever done to help or anything; apart from when they were shipped out of central Moscow in preparation for the Olympics for the sake of superficial appearance). So to say there was no unemployment is false. The fact that it was lower than what is in the neo-liberal era considered ideal is hardly much to hang in the Christmas tree - a number of social-democratic states had equally low unemployment in those days.

[Deicide]

I like how idiot soviet fanboys, from rich western countries like the United States, believe the USSR was some sort of utopia. Makes me giggle.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hanging on Mao what happened in China after his death is infantile at best. The revisionists were waiting in the wings for him to die, you can hardly blame Mao for the actions of others, particularly when those decisions ran counter to his.

Who were "the revisionists"? His people, all loyal Maoists, up to the point that Maoist stupidity caused disasters like the Great Leap Forward.



He also nearly doubled the life expectancy of the ordinary Chinese man and woman almost two-fold over his reign, gave everyone a home for the first time in Chinese history, and life in China was actually improving before his death. Your argument however is common the the far-right. Many of those deaths were also due to diseases that China lacked the ability to treat.

Mao didn't do that, the Chinese people did that in the Chinese Revolution of 1949. It was the peasants that finally seized the land from the landlords, after twenty years of Mao blowing hot and cold on that as the line flip flopped back and forth in best Mao/Stalin style. He did give "permission" in the early '50s, when it became convenient.

But the Great Leap Forward and the great famine that followed cannot be blamed on the Chinese people, there was no groundswell for that, it was something that Mao forced through, over resistance from more sensible people in the Chinese leadership, the folk now called "revisionists." The peasants went along with that, as they themselves, mistakenly, had much faith in Mao, associating him with what they had done themselves.



I'm betting that you wouldn't know Maoism if it hit you in the ass with a snow shovel. Do the ideas of The People's War, New Democracy, Cultural Revolution, and Agrarian Socialism ring any bells? Accusing Mao of being nothing more that a Chinese rip-off of Stalin is... yeah, just ask the Stalinist or the Hoxhaists, they'll explain why Mao is not Stalin to you as well.

Oh, sure, I know all about that stuff, was a Maoist myself briefly when I was young and foolish. All that stuff you mention is just a slight variant of Stalin's ideas. (As are Hoxha's, even slighter.)

I suspect you probably don't even know that there was a Cultural Revolution in the late '20s and early '30s in the USSR. Or that New Democracy is just a Third World variant of Stalin and Dimitrov's "People's Front." Indeed it is really only a codification of the policies Stalin forced down the throat of the CCP during the Second Chinese Revolution in the late 1920s. etc. etc.

Or People's War of the Soviet partisan movements during WWII, themselves using tactics traceable back to the Russian Civil War.

And who were the truly great masters of Peoples War? Well, Ho Chi Minh, no Maoists, was no slouch. But the great master was "arch-revisionist" Tito, who held down a truly huge number of Nazi soldiers and panzers and finally defeated them, with probably less help from the USSR than Mao got.



Dieing for the cause of the proletariat and refusing to bow down to capitalism is hardly an argument against Maoism, it is in fact an argument in favor of it. What your advocating, the idea that the Communist Party of Indonesia should have betrayed the working class and reform, is the exact same path that leads to Eurocommunism.

Eh? Are we talking about the same Maoist Indonesian Communist Party that supported Sukarno for decades, right up to the point that Sukarno gave his blessing to the mass slaughter of all leftists by Suharto?

The Indonesian CP was not even given the alternative of surrender, Suharto killed them all, and all other leftists too.

This was simply a repeat of what Stalin did to the Chinese Communist Party, handing it over on a platter to Chiang Kai-Shek to murder. Which Mao gently disapproved of after the fact, but not at the time when it would have mattered. And indeed, what is "New Democracy" if not the perfect excuse for an alliance with the then allegedly "democratic and progressive" KMT?



They haven't even tried to espouse Maoist Marxism for a decade or more, at least. They're the Nepalese wing of the revisionist in China, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh really? Up until the very moment their "Peoples War" won more or less, they were model Maoists and hated the revisionists in China, who returned the favor with interest. The second that they could run the country themselves, naturally the line changed, as would happen with any other Maoist victors of "Peoples War."

But your claim that they now have renounced Maoism is, from all I've heard, incorrect. Instead they have simply "interpreted" Maoism in a fashion different from your own.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The economic rationale for the GLF was based on orthodox mainstream economics here, not Marxian theory or whatever. China at the time was low on arable land and capital, but high in labor. What they tried to do was simple, to use the potential surplus of labor to improve productivity and establish rural infrastructure and local industries. Local industries would be able to improve capital stock, provide necessary inputs for crop production like fertilizers and certain infrastructure such as irrigation which would improve productivity as well as total arable land.

The economic policy was sound. The main failures of it wasn't inherent in the program itself but was due to logistical problems such as misrepresentation of crop yields by lower officials and faulty design of storage facilities that wasted away the food stored in it along with natural problems such as droughts and flooding which were unnaturally severe at the time. So one can't really argue that the GLF was inherently flawed or incredibly stupid because it was formulated on sound economics and Mao Tse-tung's intent was good.

However you can argue about the various social impact of the economic reform that created reactionary elements within the peasantry as well as Party members that propelled communes to act beyond the initial intent of the Party due to the alienation created from certain actions of the local Party members around the country that contributed to the intensification of the devastation of the GLF later on. However that topic is for a different time as I just wanted to address the problem of people labeling the GLF as inherently flawed or incredibly stupid.

If in fact the GLF was based on orthodox bourgeois economics rather than Marxist theory, that is a good argument for Marxism as far as I am concerned.

It failed to recognize that China was simply too economically and socially backward for such a policy. And even if China had not been, backyard steel furnaces in peasant communities were highly inefficient. The program held much resemblance to Stalin's forced-course industrialization in the 1930s, which had many similar problems, but at least Stalin understood that the way to build a steel furnace is not in a peasant's back yard.

Essentially, the ultimate reason for the disaster of the GLF was not local blunders, but the simple fact that you cannot build socialism in one country, especially such an economically and socially backward country as China in the 1950s. The way forward for China is international workers revolution, especially revolution in Japan and other Asian countries. And with the worldwide visible failure of capitalism, a truly revolutionary and internationalist policy in China would have huge resonance everywhere.

Which is why the policies of Deng and so forth, for all their reactionary features, have been economically more successful than those of Mao.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

"People between jobs" were also counted - and this was often a rate of upwards 1,8 to 2.5%, and this number excluded other unemployed (homeless people, often with mental illness; of which there was a fair number and little was ever done to help or anything; apart from when they were shipped out of central Moscow in preparation for the Olympics for the sake of superficial appearance). So to say there was no unemployment is false. The fact that it was lower than what is in the neo-liberal era considered ideal is hardly much to hang in the Christmas tree - a number of social-democratic states had equally low unemployment in those days.

An interesting claim. From what I have heard, the Brezhnev regime was delighted to toss people into loony bins, including folk who didn't necessarily belong there at all. Of course not all of them were nice places, and no doubt there were crazy people who preferred living on the street to shock treatment and whatnot--perhaps understandably so.

You had free education, and all sorts of free social programs for sick people--most certainly including alcoholics, not a new phenomenon in Russia. Most "people between jobs" were people who had enough rubles to get by for a while, didn't like their current job, and weren't in the mood for another just yet.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Since you can't answer what I have to say, you bluster like a lawyer defending a guilty defendant. And you accuse me of "blabbering"?

Well, I suppose if you can't actually say anything to answer my arguments, your cheap rhetoric is a good substitute.

And I really like your attempt to confuse the issue around what Marx had to say about capitalism. Sure, times have changed between then and now, but the fundamental structure of capitalism is pretty much the same, and the economy of the USSR had absolutely zero to do with any conception Marx had of capitalism.

If you want to just say, well, Marx was a 19th century thinker, and anything he has to say about capitalism now is bullshit, well then just say so. But then you'll have to explain just what capitalism is now and just how it transformed into something the exact opposite of what Marx understood to be capitalism, at some length I should think.

So do so, or at least tell us which Great Thinker of the present you follow who has done so. Then perhaps we could have a productive discussion.

Till then, you don't seem to be worth wasting any further time with.

-M.H.-


You just said capitalism doesn't "develop", and then you said it does. In a single paragraph.


You don't really pay attention to what I am saying, you just find ways to spin things around and divert the focus of discussion. You aren't really saying anything, just blabbering.

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben-part-4

Marx lived in the 1800s. He knew there would be many developments and counterbalancing tendencies which he could not foresee, and just because he would not have been exposed to something in his time, doesn't mean it's not capitalism. He did not create a rigid system, but rather a way of seeing history as a constantly unfolding, dynamic and fluid process. That you don't understand this and say things like "Marx would not have considered that capitalism!" is alarming. Also that you would characterize bourgeois political economics as an attitude, or what "individuals are capable of conceiving", or simply "contempt for the working class" is very idealistic, moralistic and, I hate to sound like a disciple, but anti-Marxist.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'd just like to comment how ridiculous and entirely mechanistic the notion of capitalist decadence is in the hands of AMH when trying to argue that the development of Chinese society isn't based on the capitalist mode of production.

This kind of apriori bullshit is really dangerous theoretically - positing that not any capitalist society can undergo even cyclical changes, and instead is doomed for decline, obviously runs counter to simple facts, but this leads to another problem - that of a lack of any coherent understanding of the current dynamics of global capitalism. Not to mention the theoretical abyss of equating individual private property (in rations to state property at that!) with capitalism, and counterposing it to state property, as if somehow capital when commanded, directed by the state simply cannot be taken to be an exploitative force, appropriating workers' labour time and realizing profits, in short - accumulating.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'd just like to comment how ridiculous and entirely mechanistic the notion of capitalist decadence is in the hands of AMH when trying to argue that the development of Chinese society isn't based on the capitalist mode of production.

This kind of apriori bullshit is really dangerous theoretically - positing that not any capitalist society can undergo even cyclical changes, and instead is doomed for decline, obviously runs counter to simple facts, but this leads to another problem - that of a lack of any coherent understanding of the current dynamics of global capitalism. Not to mention the theoretical abyss of equating individual private property (in rations to state property at that!) with capitalism, and counterposing it to state property, as if somehow capital when commanded, directed by the state simply cannot be taken to be an exploitative force, appropriating workers' labour time and realizing profits, in short - accumulating.

Well, I certainly don't claim that the tremendous rise in the productive forces of China over the last period proves that China is not capitalist. Rather, it proves either that (a) China is not capitalist or (b) capitalism really is capable of allowing tremendous social advances in this period.

Describing the downright world-shaking transformation that China has undergone, with all sorts of scared bourgeois fearing that China is going to rule the world in the future, as just a "cyclical change" is pretty bizarre.

I am highly reluctant to adopt option (b), because that pretty much would throw revolutionary perspectives into the toilet. If society can make that much progress under capitalism, then, especially given the weakness of the Left, a strong argument could be made that what capitalism needs right now is reform not revolution.

But if so, well then so be it.

However, there are far more finally decisive arguments to prove that China isn't capitalist. Indeed the very notion of "state capitalism" as the usual "state cap" argues is IMHO pretty silly. "State capitalism" is the US Post Office. China is a very different animal.

The Chinese capitalist class was destroyed in the Chinese Revolution. There is a new one arising, but it is not the same as the CCP, indeed continuing contradictions between the CCP and the rising capitalists should be obvious to anyone without dogmatic "state cap" blinders on.

-M.H.-

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, I certainly don't claim that the tremendous rise in the productive forces of China over the last period proves that China is not capitalist. Rather, it proves either that (a) China is not capitalist or (b) capitalism really is capable of allowing tremendous social advances in this period.So, you're not claiming a) but rather "either a) or b)".
Yes, you are claiming that this rise in the productive forces proves that China is not capitalist since you assume, without any demonstration or evidence, that such a thing cannot happen on the capitalist basis, no matter the particular nation-state which undergoes development.


Describing the downright world-shaking transformation that China has undergone, with all sorts of scared bourgeois fearing that China is going to rule the world in the future, as just a "cyclical change" is pretty bizarre.I did no such thing, but I'll try to be more clear from now on.
By cyclical changes I refer to what is known as the business cycle, meaning that it's quite obvious that capitalist development had still in the last 3-4 decades managed to provide the basis for the rise in productive powers. But that doesn't yet tell us anything about class relations and the overall situation of the working class. This is precisely at stake here, and it seems to me that you're forgetting the social cost of Chinese capitalism.


I am highly reluctant to adopt option (b), because that pretty much would throw revolutionary perspectives into the toilet.
So, basically, you're not arguing from an analytical perspective - from the correct view on the way Chinese economy works - but from the perspective what you take to be the political conclusions of a specific view.

As far as you're take on revolutionary perspectives, I don't think it is so since, what I already mentioned, you seem to be neglecting tremendous social upheaval and crisis which comes as a necessary by-product of capitalist development (and I think we can conclude that this has been a constant in all of the historical manifestations of capitalism).


If society can make that much progress under capitalism, then, especially given the weakness of the Left, a strong argument could be made that what capitalism needs right now is reform not revolution. Again, there is no "society" - only classes composing social life of a given nation-state, and it is wrong to assume that this progress relates to all classes in the same way. What is progress and profit for the appropriators is exploitation and near destitution for (at least a good part of) the working class.
Also, it's not hard to see how, given the enabling conjuncture (available labour and the inflow of foreing capital - meaning that the Chinese state was in a very favourable bargaining position and managed to actually tie down capital in its productive form on its own terms), a poorly developed industrial country could undergo such a development.


However, there are far more finally decisive arguments to prove that China isn't capitalist. Indeed the very notion of "state capitalism" as the usual "state cap" argues is IMHO pretty silly. "State capitalism" is the US Post Office. China is a very different animal.I'm still waiting to actually see those decisive arguments. And I fail to see how a comparison of an entire nation-state with the US Post Office would tell us anything about either. Yes, they're different, because one is a public service and the other is state, that much is obvious.


The Chinese capitalist class was destroyed in the Chinese Revolution. There is a new one arising, but it is not the same as the CCP, indeed continuing contradictions between the CCP and the rising capitalists should be obvious to anyone without dogmatic "state cap" blinders on.
Yes, class recomposition doesn't only affect the working class.
However, I do maintain that the party-state structure served as the initial site of such a recomposition, and that state bureaucrats essentially fulfill the function of the bourgeois class, of course, alongside a more familiar bourgeois class of individual proprietors. And I fail to see how opposition within the ruling class is special so that it would imply that one of its wings cannot be considered as borugeois in its function and role. I surely hope you don't view the bourgeois class as a homogenous entity devoid of its own tensions and conflicts.

[A Marxist Historian]

So, you're not claiming a) but rather "either a) or b)".
Yes, you are claiming that this rise in the productive forces proves that China is not capitalist since you assume, without any demonstration or evidence, that such a thing cannot happen on the capitalist basis, no matter the particular nation-state which undergoes development.

That capitalism can no longer advance the productive forces of society in the era of imperialism is very basic Leninism and Trotskyism, with huge amounts of empirical evidence for it, especially right now of course.

Naturally, Lenin and Trotsky could be dead wrong, maybe capitalism isn't doomed after all, but that's an awfully heavy conclusion to come to just because bourgeois public opinion, until recently at least, has been that China is a capitalist country (something that is changing lately, as you'll note if you read the more intelligent bourgeois journals, the NYT, Wall Street Journal etc.)

"Mainland" Chinese leftists, of whom there are huge numbers these days, are very divided like all leftists, but from what I hear most of 'em aren't "state caps," and if they are that's 'cuz they are Maoists who see the current bunch as "capitalist roaders" Mao-style, and are outraged at the idea that Mao himself was a capitalist.


I did no such thing, but I'll try to be more clear from now on.
By cyclical changes I refer to what is known as the business cycle, meaning that it's quite obvious that capitalist development had still in the last 3-4 decades managed to provide the basis for the rise in productive powers. But that doesn't yet tell us anything about class relations and the overall situation of the working class. This is precisely at stake here, and it seems to me that you're forgetting the social cost of Chinese capitalism.

In and of itself, it doesn't prove that China isn't capitalist, but it's a very good reason to be skeptical of claims that China is capitalist because "everybody says so."

Objectively speaking, continued CCP rule does shield Chinese workers and peasants from the worst ravages of capitalist exploitation. That's why China is not India, where half of all children suffer malnutrition, landlords rule the countryside, exploitation of the working class is absolutely untrammeled, and popular living standards--unlike in China--are pretty much what they were thirty years ago, despite all the alleged "economic progress" whose benefits are totally limited to the huge Indian bourgeoisie.

In China, class relations in the countryside and the city are contested--literally, that's why there are so many "mass incidents," and why so often the CCP reaction to the ever more frequent strikes and peasant revolts is to jail the leaders--and grant the demands.


So, basically, you're not arguing from an analytical perspective - from the correct view on the way Chinese economy works - but from the perspective what you take to be the political conclusions of a specific view.

No. The bottom line reason is that China does not function like a capitalist economy. In America and Europe, as any fool can plainly see, the banks rule all, just like Lenin explained a hundred years ago. Monopoly capitalism, corporations created, owned and controlled by the banks, and when the banks are in trouble, nothing on earth is more important than rescuing them, as they are the heart of the economic system.

In China, the banks are 100% at the beck and call of the CCP, and follow its orders. The CCP is in favor of capitalists making profits, as that keeps the workers employed and makes the country richer. But the prime concern of the CCP in its economic planning is what will make the country as a whole richer, not whether the banks make their profits or not.

Of course, being corrupt bureaucrats, they are often a big hindrance to China's actual best interests, though they've had an awfully good streak lately--certainly been much more successful in that respect than Mao was.

If Chinese capitalists get in the way, they get stomped on. A decade ago the richest man in China was taken out and shot on corruption charges. (Not political dissidence, just "corruption," i.e. doing things like American bankers do and get rewarded for). Not something likely to happen in a capitalist country!

A totally different economic and political dynamic.


As far as you're take on revolutionary perspectives, I don't think it is so since, what I already mentioned, you seem to be neglecting tremendous social upheaval and crisis which comes as a necessary by-product of capitalist development (and I think we can conclude that this has been a constant in all of the historical manifestations of capitalism).

Again, there is no "society" - only classes composing social life of a given nation-state, and it is wrong to assume that this progress relates to all classes in the same way. What is progress and profit for the appropriators is exploitation and near destitution for (at least a good part of) the working class.

Well, firstly Chinese workers living standards have increased remarkably lately, certainly they are much better off than under Mao, not even mentioning the unbelievably incredible destitution under Chiang and mass murder by the Japanese.

But be that as it may, you are posing this highly incorrectly. Yes, there is such a thing as human society, and there are different classes in it, delineated by their relationship to the means of production.

We Marxists support the working class. Why? Because the workers are the oppressed class? No, that's not the reason why. They are not after all the most oppressed class, that would be the "wretched of the earth," the lumpenproletariat, whose relationship to the means of production is that they don't have one. Frantz Fanon's idea of who would be the vanguard of the revolution, not that of any Marxist.

At various times in human history various different exploiter classes have been the ones representing society's best interests. This was certainly true for the capitalist class at one time. If you go back far enough, this was once true for the feudal lords, and even for the ancient slavemasters.

But now, it is the working class that is the class whose objective interests--socialism--correspond to the current needs of the human race, the class which has "nothing to lose but its chains" (regrettably, most workers do not realize this objective fact, which is why a revolutionary workers party is needed. But that's another story...)

Marx explains this all very well in the Communist Manifesto, which no doubt you have read many times, but you should take another look at.



Also, it's not hard to see how, given the enabling conjuncture (available labour and the inflow of foreing capital - meaning that the Chinese state was in a very favourable bargaining position and managed to actually tie down capital in its productive form on its own terms), a poorly developed industrial country could undergo such a development.

No, it is very, very hard to see. China is not some tiny little enclave like Singapore or Dubai, where all sorts of local conjunctural factors could come in handy, it was until recently the country with the largest population on earth!

If this kind of huge social progress is possible in China, it is possible absolutely anywhere, so capitalism is a system that still has some excellent possibilities for human progress, just as it did in the 19th century. Social Democracy degenerated into reformism for a reason.



I'm still waiting to actually see those decisive arguments. And I fail to see how a comparison of an entire nation-state with the US Post Office would tell us anything about either. Yes, they're different, because one is a public service and the other is state, that much is obvious.

Yes, class recomposition doesn't only affect the working class.
However, I do maintain that the party-state structure served as the initial site of such a recomposition, and that state bureaucrats essentially fulfill the function of the bourgeois class, of course, alongside a more familiar bourgeois class of individual proprietors. And I fail to see how opposition within the ruling class is special so that it would imply that one of its wings cannot be considered as borugeois in its function and role. I surely hope you don't view the bourgeois class as a homogenous entity devoid of its own tensions and conflicts.

Except that they don't, which is why you have conflict between them.

What's the diff between the US Post Office and the public sector in China? It's that the Post Office is a public service for *the US capitalist class,* whose benefits for private capitalists are self-evident. And, now that mail is being replaced by E-mail etc., it's dying, even though its benefits for the general population, as opposed to business, are still very important.

You could in theory have a country where all the decisive elements of the economy were nationalized for the benefit of a private capitalist class. In fact Burma, where everything was owned by the British before independence, briefly was pretty much that in the late 1950s. But the purpose was to foster the interests and development of a Burmese capitalist class, so everything got privatized when this was no longer necessary.

The CCP has no intention whatsoever of just handing over everything to the private capitalists in China, for the simple reason that then they would lose power. They saw what happened in the USSR when Yeltsin took over, and that's not what they want.

The basis of the CCP's power is the belief of the Chinese people, which is not a delusion but has objective basis, that the CCP is governing China ultimately in the interests of the workers and especially the peasants. This is still the case, at least according to Gallup polls. But is fraying...

You have a worldwide capitalist economic crisis, in all the major capitalist centers. That China seems so immune to it has to mean something awfully basic.

Why do you think that all the capitalist powers are so hostile to China? Just inter-imperialist rivalry? If that's all it was, then various competitors to America would be lining up with China vs. America. Which they most certainly are not.

The bourgeoisie has excellent class instincts. For a good while, China got a pass, as the Chinese had allied themselves with the capitalist classes of the world vs. the Soviet Union. And besides, the capitalists mostly figured that the CP regime would soon be following the Soviet regime into oblivion.

Well, they were wrong, so the capitalists have rediscovered the evils of Chinese totalitarian communism, and have revved up the 'human rights" crusade, the poor little ex-slaveholding Tibetan theocrats, etc. etc.

The role of China on the world scene is just not like that of a capitalist power. It is a Stalinist regime, not different fundamentally from that of Brezhnev or Tito or Ceaucescu or whoever.

These are just a few of the reasons why China is not a capitalist state. Here's a much more thorough and comprehensive analysis of China's "market reforms," a two part article written five years ago, probably at the point at which the belief that China was "capitalist" was most popular in bourgeois circles.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/874/chinamarket.html

Hopefully this will answer your perfectly legitimate request for "the decisive reasons" for my position--and that of the Spartacists, which I uphold.

-M.H.-