China is.....? (Poll)

[Akshay!]

What is China?

All opinions are welcome.

You can choose more than one option.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, if I may reference Mao's opinion of China:


‘China’s first Marxist-Leninist big character poster and Commentator’s article on it in Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) are indeed superbly written! Comrades, please read them again. But in the last fifty days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the great cultural revolution of the proletariat. They have stood facts on their head and juggled black and white, encircled and suppressed revolutionaries, stifled opinions differing from their own, imposed a white terror, and felt very pleased with themselves. They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat. How poisonous! Viewed in connection with the Right deviation in 1962 and the wrong tendency of 1964 which was ‘Left’ in form but Right in essence, shouldn’t this make one wide awake?




So if Mao realized that the Chinese state was a capitalist one that needed to be violently overthrown at his own time, then I think it is reasonable to say that present day China hasn't changed much from the defeat of the cultural revolution

[Fourth Internationalist]

I voted capitalist like in the US. China's capitalism is highly influenced by the state, but it is mostly in the hands of non-state / private corporations. Thus, not state capitalist.

[Akshay!]

Well, if I may reference Mao's opinion of China:



So if Mao realized that the Chinese state was a capitalist one that needed to be violently overthrown at his own time, then I think it is reasonable to say that present day China hasn't changed much from the defeat of the cultural revolution

But the question is - "Is it capitalist in the same sense as US?"


but it is mostly in the hands of non-state / private corporations.

lolwut? Can you back that claim?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is state capitalist ... or, one might say "capital statist".

[Brutus]

If anyone calls it socialist I may cry...

[Skyhilist]

No option for communist dictatorship?

Just kidding, but seriously China is an embarrassment and anyone who thinks they aren't capitalist either hasn't done any research or is just extremely delusional. We get both on the left on occasion.

[Devrim]

I voted capitalist. The choices seem a bit arbitrary though. There is no Trotskyist option (a degenerated/deformed workers state, and Maoist and Marxist Lenninist are often used interchangeably today, and aren't descriptions of the means of production anyway.

Devrim

[Flying Purple People Eater]

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=p9COCuMJ-7EwYM&tbnid=IOX2qMSooZKydM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkkhoo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Ffoxconn-factory.jpg&ei=PZHOUeKhBa-SiQe2s4HoAw&psig=AFQjCNGsJiFLXASWbnyXk4dCxDeJu9MsLA&ust=1372578493145470

Look at this Apple sponsored Chinese socialist paradise.


SACOM [Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior] has been supporting the CCSG in their campaign to end the abusive use of dispatch labour or labour sub-contracting system. In December 2008 and May 2009, two investigative reports were published by the CCSG highlighted the labour violations in the Coca-Cola's bottling plants, including:


excessive use of dispatch labour: Coca-Cola reiterates that the beverages industry has a high seasonality; but in some of the plants, like Hangzhou bottling plant, most of the positions are filled by dispatch labour throughout the year;
inadequate protective equipment: No protective equipment, like gloves or earplugs, is provided to workers. At the same time, there is absence of pre-post training for new workers;
unequal treatment: CCSG points out that dispatch workers get a lower wage with longer working hours compared to the regular workers;
overtime: Dispatched labour always have overtime work up to 150 hours in Swire Guangdong Coca-Cola Limited (Huizhou) during summer;
deceptions in contract: Workers are asked to sign a blank contract. On the contract only the expiration date has already been filled in; and
denial of the right to unionize: Even though Coca-Cola claimed that dispatch labour can join the trade union in the factory, none of the dispatch workers displayed any knowledge about their rights to form or join labor unions.

Disappointedly, Coca-Cola did not ever respond to the criticisms of the CCSG. Furthermore, a violent incident broke out in August 2009 when one of the student workers of Coca-Cola's bottling plant in Hangzhou, surnamed Liang or Xiao Liang, demanded wages owed by the labour dispatch company. SACOM called for a public response from Coca-Cola and issued a press release titled "Violence in Coca-Cola's Labor Subcontracting System in China." It was reported:


"On the 12th of August 2009, a labor dispatch company hired by Coca-Cola's designated Hangzhou-based bottling plant was discovered to have threatened two university student-workers who asked for their own and their two other fellow workers' backpay upon their resignation. Xiao Liang, 24, was beaten up by two managers at the labor dispatch company's office, resulting in serious wounds over his left eye, left hand, and right ear. Xiao Xu sent Xiao Liang to the Dongfang Hospital immediately after police arrived on the scene. Xiao Liang was later diagnosed with a ruptured eardrum, resulting in compromised hearing capacity...
http://killercoke.org/img/content/coca-cola_student_worker.jpgXiao Liang, 24, was beaten up by two managers at the labor dispatch company's office, resulting in serious wounds over his left eye, left hand, and right ear.


"Despite their declared commitment to corporate responsibility, Coca-Cola, the world's largest beverage company, has never approached the student-workers to explain wage arrears and use of violence.
"Regardless of whether it is the high or low production season, a significant body of subcontracted or dispatched workers--who face frequent wage arrears and even cutbacks on their pay--exists in Coca-Cola's Chinese factories."
"Dispatched workers are employed by agencies, which send them to fill 'temporary, supporting or replaceable positions,' according to Article 66 of China's Labor Contract Law.
http://www.worldlabour.org/eng/node/239

And this marvelous revolutionary discipline against unpaid workers filthy trotskyites.


China 'is fuelling war in Darfur'


By Hilary Andersson
BBC News, Darfur
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/jpg/_44827244_bbc226bodyjeblorry.jpg The BBC tracked down Chinese-built military trucks inside Darfur

The BBC has found the first evidence that China is currently helping Sudan's government militarily in Darfur.
The Panorama TV programme tracked down Chinese army lorries in the Sudanese province that came from a batch exported from China to Sudan in 2005.
The BBC was also told that China was training fighter pilots who fly Chinese A5 Fantan fighter jets in Darfur.
China's government has declined to comment on the BBC's findings, which contravene a UN arms embargo on Darfur.
The embargo requires foreign nations to take measures to ensure they do not militarily assist anyone in the conflict in Darfur, in which the UN estimates that about 300,000 people have died.
More than two million people are also believed to have fled their villages in Darfur, destroyed by pro-government Arab Janjaweed militia.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/jpg/_44827243_bbc226bodyjebdate.jpg Plates on the first truck show it was imported after the embargo

Panorama traced the first lorry by travelling deep into the remote deserts of West Darfur.
They found a Chinese Dong Feng army lorry in the hands of one of Darfur's rebel groups.
The BBC established through independent eyewitness testimony that the rebels had captured it from Sudanese government forces in December.
The rebels filmed a second lorry with the BBC's camera. Both vehicles had been carrying anti-aircraft guns, one a Chinese gun.
Markings showed that they were from a batch of 212 Dong Feng army lorries that the UN had traced as having arrived in Sudan after the arms embargo was put in place.
The lorries came straight from the factory in China to Sudan and were consigned to Sudan's defence ministry. The guns were mounted after the lorries were imported from China.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif When it is shooting or firing there is nowhere for you to move and the sound is just like the sound of the rain http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Hamaad Abakar Adballa describing attack by anti-aircraft gun

The UN started looking for these lorries in Darfur three years ago, suspecting they had been sent there, but never found them.
"We had no specific access to Sudanese government army stores, we were not allowed to take down factory codes or model numbers or registrations etc to verify these kinds of things," said EJ Hogendoorn, a member of the UN panel of experts that was involved in trying to locate the lorries.
Culpability
China has chosen not to respond to the BBC's findings. Its public position is that it abides by all UN arms embargoes.
China has said in the past that it told Sudan's government not to use Chinese military equipment in Darfur.
Sudan's government, however, has told the UN that it will send military equipment wherever it likes within its sovereign territory.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/gif/_44827644_sudan_wdarfur_0708.gif
An international lawyer, Clare da Silva, says China's point that it has taken measures in line with the arms embargo's requirements to stop its weapons from going to Darfur is meaningless.
"It is an empty measure to take the assurances from a partner who clearly has no intention of abiding by the resolution," she said.
Ms da Silva said the BBC's evidence put China in violation of the arms embargo.
The UN panel of experts on Darfur has said it wants to examine the BBC's evidence.
Homes scorched
The BBC found witnesses who said they saw the first Dong Feng which the BBC tracked down being used with its anti-aircraft gun in an attack in a town called Sirba, in West Darfur, in December.
"When it is shooting or firing there is nowhere for you to move and the sound is just like the sound of the rain. Then 'Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!'" said Hamaad Abakar Adballa, a witness in the Chadian refugee town of Birak.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/jpg/_44827242_bbc226bodyfantans.jpg The Chinese are accused of training pilots to use Fantan fighter jets

The lorry's powerful anti-aircraft gun fired straight into civilian houses. The gun carries high calibre shells that explode on impact, spreading hot shards of metal and causing terrible wounds
Witnesses saw one hut take a direct hit from the gun:
"An intense wave of heat instantly sent all the huts around up in flames," one witness, Risique Bahar, said. "There was a lot of screaming."
In the attack on Sirba one woman was burnt to death, another horribly injured.
Genocide accusation
Sudan's government has been accused by the United States of genocide against Darfur's black Africans.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The terms of the embargo cover not only just the supply of weapons, military vehicles, paramilitary equipment. It also covers training any technical assistance, so the training of pilots obviously falls within the scope of the embargo http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


International lawyer, Clare da Silva

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) say war crimes by Sudan's Arab-dominated government have included summary executions, rape and torture.
Recently the conflict has deteriorated into more confused fighting, with rebel and militia groups also fighting each other. Two hundred thousand people have been displaced already this year.
Malnutrition rates are set to soar in South Darfur later this year due to insecurity and drought.
Darfur's landscape is spotted with blackened circles representing the hundreds of the villages that were burnt down by government forces and their Janjaweed allies.
Air attacks
In these attacks Darfur's civilians have been hunted not just from the ground, but from the sky.
Most civilians who tell stories of aerial attacks talk about Russian made Antanovs and helicopter gunships.
Many also talk about fighter jets being used, but no-one has ever answered the question of which type of fighter jets these are.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44722000/jpg/_44722852_bashir.jpg President Bashir says facts have been distorted and exaggerated

Kaltam Abakar Mohammed, a mother of seven, watched three of her children being blown to pieces as they were attacked by a fighter jet on 19 February in the town of Beybey in Darfur.
The BBC has established that Chinese Fantan fighter jets were flying on missions out of Nyala airport in south Darfur in February.
Panorama acquired satellite photographs of the two fighters at the airport on 18 June 2008, and its investigations indicate these are the only fighter jets that have been based in Darfur this year.
When Kaltam heard the sound of fighting early that morning, she took her children and ran.
"We start running near the well," she said. "We hid behind a big rock. Something that looks like an eagle started coming from over there. It looked like an eagle but it made a funny noise."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/jpg/_44827246_bbc226bodyjemtruck.jpg Jem rebels used a BBC camera to film a truck fitted with an anti-aircraft gun

When the plane unleashed two bombs Kaltam's five-year-old daughter, Nura, was dismembered from the chest up.
Her eight-year-old son, Adam, was killed instantly, as was her 20-year-old daughter, Amna.
Kaltam's 19-month-old grandson still has shrapnel in his head from the fighter jet bombing. He cries a lot and often calls out for his mother, but she was killed in the attack.
Kaltam's 13-year-old girl, Hawa, cannot grasp what she saw happen that day to her brother and two sisters. She rarely speaks now.
Pilot training
The Chinese Fantan jets are believed to have been delivered to Sudan in 2003 before the current UN arms embargo was imposed on Darfur.
But the BBC has been told by two confidential sources that China is training Fantan fighter pilots.
Sudan imported a number of fighter trainers called K8s two years ago - they are designed to train pilots of fighters like Fantans.
"Clearly this is what they used to train for operations with the Fantans," said Chris Dietrich, a former member of the UN panel on Darfur.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44827000/jpg/_44827245_bbc226bodyjemplates.jpg This second truck also had plates identifying it as being from China

International lawyer Ms da Silva says if China is training Fantan pilots, this represents another Chinese violation of the UN arms embargo.
"The terms of the embargo cover not only just the supply of weapons, military vehicles, paramilitary equipment. It also covers training any technical assistance, so the training of pilots obviously falls within the scope of the embargo."
There are strong economic ties between the China and Sudan.
China buys most of Sudan's oil and believes that what Sudan needs is good business partners, help with development and a solid peace process in Darfur, instead of confrontation and sanctions from the West.
So when China's President Hu Jintao visited Sudan in 2007 he wrote off millions of dollars worth of debt and donated a multi-million pound interest free loan for a new presidential palace to Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.
In April last year, China's military leaders pledged to strengthen co-operation with Sudan.


And their glorious support of imperialist toys to protect China in the neo-colonial scramble for Africa by letting them devour Sudan's oil, murdering anything that gets in their way Darfur's islamic socialist national liberation movements.


A Thousand Middle School Students Protest Against Privatization of Their School

Thu, 06/13/2013 - 04:41 — LabourWorld




http://www.worldlabour.org/eng/files/imce/Q1.jpg (http://s1.djyimg.com/i6/1306040133501673--ss2.jpg)



On 31, May 2013, a thousand middle school students protested against the privatization of their school in Shien city, Hubei province. The Second Advanced Level Middle School had been a public school until the local government decided to privatize it. The Shien city is under the jurisdiction of the Shijian county which is quite poor and mainly rural. Students from rural at the school fear that upon privatization the school will raise fee to a level which they will not be able to afford to pay.

Available only in Chinese:
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/13/6/4/n3886261.htm

http://www.worldlabour.org/eng/node/594

And while you're at it, gaze upon these social-fascists who are fighting the revolutionary implementation of segregated education based on the cash in your pocket class consciousness!

Morons...

Anyone who argues that China is a socialist country or maintains a socialist government should be restricted immediately. I really hope that this is a public poll.

EDIT: 'State capitalist' are you for real, folks.

[Tim Cornelis]

I voted capitalist like in the US. China's capitalism is highly influenced by the state, but it is mostly in the hands of non-state / private corporations. Thus, not state capitalist.


lolwut? Can you back that claim?

China's economy is roughly evenly divided in terms of state ownership and the private sector, with the public sector employing half of the working force and the private sector generating over 60% of the country's GDP. But given that publicly owned corporations operate through market exchange, I'd say it's not state-capitalist either.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The core of the Chinese economy, including the entire heavy industry, most of the agricultural enterprises, and the strategic banks, remain in state ownership. Private enterprises are mostly limited to the light industry and are mostly concessionary in nature - that is, they are owned by foreign entities or offshore Chinese capitalists. It seems to me that in China, the (degenerated) workers' state has not been overthrown, not yet, at least, though it is under heavy pressure by the imperialist powers, which manifests as marker "reforms" and the dragooning of workers in the private sector.

[Tim Cornelis]

The core of the Chinese economy, including the entire heavy industry, most of the agricultural enterprises, and the strategic banks, remain in state ownership. Private enterprises are mostly limited to the light industry and are mostly concessionary in nature - that is, they are owned by foreign entities or offshore Chinese capitalists. It seems to me that in China, the (degenerated) workers' state has not been overthrown, not yet, at least, though it is under heavy pressure by the imperialist powers, which manifests as marker "reforms" and the dragooning of workers in the private sector.

I'm trying not to get into a discussion about the ludicrous notions of deformed and degernation workers' states, but I'm curious: do you consider Belarus a workers' state in any way, shape, or form?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm trying not to get into a discussion about the ludicrous notions of deformed and degernation workers' states, but I'm curious: do you consider Belarus a workers' state in any way, shape, or form?

Not really. The state sector in Belarus does not control the core of the economy, the domestic bourgeoisie owns most of the private enterprises, and the key financial institutions are not entirely in state hands. Furthermore, the quantitative changes in the composition of the economy led to a social counterrevolution in Belarus in the nineties, whereas no such counterrevolution occurred in China, despite the valiant efforts of the bourgeoisie and some of their "left" supporters, and despite the fact that on paper, Belarus is perhaps more statified than China.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not really. The state sector in Belarus does not control the core of the economy,

The division would actually be similar to China, if we are to believe wikipedia:


Most of the Belarusian economy remains state-controlled[94] and has been described as "Soviet-style."[125] Thus, 51.2% of Belarusians are employed by state-controlled companies, 47.4% are employed by private companies (of which 5.7% are partially foreign-owned), and 1.4% are employed by foreign companies.[126] The country relies on Russia for various imports, including petroleum.[127][128] Important agricultural products include potatoes and cattle byproducts, including meat.[129] In 1994, Belarus's main exports included heavy machinery (especially tractors), agricultural products, and energy products.[130]

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The division would actually be similar to China, if we are to believe wikipedia:

Perhaps, but as I said, key sectors of the economy - the enormous optical industry for example - are not entirely in State hands.

[Tim Cornelis]

Perhaps, but as I said, key sectors of the economy - the enormous optical industry for example - are not entirely in State hands.

Seems a bit arbitrary, but wha'ever.

[CriticalJames]

Some of the biggest corporations in China are state-owned and you'll notice that Communist Party members are often heavily involved in the running of companies throughout China - often being big shareholders and chairmen.

The nexus between state and corporate power is very visible in China; it's just less obvious in America. In the United States, leading politicians all have ties in big business and even if they don't they are forced to sell themselves out to these companies. Similar to the situation in China, but shielded by a thin layer of fabricated democracy and freedom.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Seems a bit arbitrary, but wha'ever.

I don't think it is. No workers' state has completely abolished private property, except perhaps the PSR Albania (and Democratic Kampuchea, which I don't think can be called a workers' state). Obviously the existence of a workers' state is compatible with some degree of private ownership (which is not to say that such ownership is not problematic). Anyway, the criteria I mentioned - state ownership of the core of the economy, etc. etc. - are simply a good heuristic. To focus on them exclusively would be empiricism. The chief question is whether a social counterrevolution has occurred. It has in Belarus, and it hasn't in China, in the DPR Korea, Vietnam or Cuba.


Some of the biggest corporations in China are state-owned and you'll notice that Communist Party members are often heavily involved in the running of companies throughout China - often being big shareholders and chairmen.

The nexus between state and corporate power is very visible in China; it's just less obvious in America. In the United States, leading politicians all have ties in big business and even if they don't they are forced to sell themselves out to these companies.

However, unless you think that the CPC is bourgeois, or that it forms some new class previously unknown to Marxism, these are really two separate phenomena. As for the actual Chinese bourgeoisie, mostly offshore, the CPC is always at loggerheads with them.

[Per Levy]

The chief question is whether a social counterrevolution has occurred. It has in Belarus, and it hasn't in China, in the DPR Korea, Vietnam or Cuba.

you do know that capitalists are allowed to join the communist party of china right? you do know that china, north korea and vietnam have some of the worst workers right in the world, right? are you really suggesting that as long the "communist" partys of these countries hold power, counterrevolution hasnt happen yet and with that its not capitalism? how much more need the workers of these countries be exploited and opressed for you to say it as it is, these countries are capitalist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The core of the Chinese economy, including the entire heavy industry, most of the agricultural enterprises, and the strategic banks, remain in state ownership. Private enterprises are mostly limited to the light industry and are mostly concessionary in nature - that is, they are owned by foreign entities or offshore Chinese capitalists. It seems to me that in China, the (degenerated) workers' state has not been overthrown, not yet, at least, though it is under heavy pressure by the imperialist powers, which manifests as marker "reforms" and the dragooning of workers in the private sector.

95% of petroleum production in Saudi Arabia is owned and managed by the state. Additional, the banking sector and the various chemical industries in Saudi Arabia are also owned by the state. Combined that means that over 60% of the GDP is generated by the state, this leads to an equivalent or perhaps greater state sector than China. Additionally, unlike China which allows private bourgeois to join it's government, there is no mechanism for capitalists to become a part of the Saudi government and the Saudi king plus his technocrats have a complete monopoly over the government. Also unlike China, whose industries operate entirely on the basis of profit, and whose government has abandoned planning, Saudi Arabia is a centrally planned economy.

Is Saudi Arabia a deformed worker's state?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

95% of petroleum production in Saudi Arabia is owned and managed by the state. Additional, the banking sector and the various chemical industries in Saudi Arabia are also owned by the state.

Is Saudi Arabia a deformed worker's state?

No, but unlike China (and Belarus), Saudi Arabia never experienced a proletarian revolution. Nor did Syria, Burma, Iraq and so on. That is why I tried to emphasise that focusing on state ownership alone is empiricist. A workers' state only becomes possible through a workers' revolution.


you do know that capitalists are allowed to join the communist party of china right? you do know that china, north korea and vietnam have some of the worst workers right in the world, right? are you really suggesting that as long the "communist" partys of these countries hold power, counterrevolution hasnt happen yet and with that its not capitalism? how much more need the workers of these countries be exploited and opressed for you to say it as it is, these countries are capitalist.

Focusing on workers' rights is impressionistic. The situation of the workers was even worse during Military Communism (Chinese workers, at least, are not shot for striking). As for the bourgeoisie, they have been allowed in the CPC since its founding, as far as I can tell.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

As for the bourgeoisie, they have been allowed in the CPC since its founding, as far as I can tell.

Actually, no. The Chinese government allowed opposition parties to operate somewhat freely during it's early days and these are the places where the bourgeois would join. The Chinese Communist Party had a ban on people who owned private property or a means of production until 20002 I believe.

[Per Levy]

No, but unlike China (and Belarus), Saudi Arabia never experienced a proletarian revolution. Nor did Syria, Burma, Iraq and so on. That is why I tried to emphasise that focusing on state ownership alone is empiricist. A workers' state only becomes possible through a workers' revolution.

and? if china is behaving exactly like any other capitalist state in the world, with a bit more and less state-ownership than other states, why do you still call it a "worker state"? the revolution is dead and no red flag can make it otherwise.


Focusing on workers' rights is impressionistic. The situation of the workers was even worse during Military Communism (Chinese workers, at least, are not shot for striking). As for the bourgeoisie, they have been allowed in the CPC since its founding, as far as I can tell.

for the sake of the thread can i ask you to open a thread to tell everyone what exactly a workers state is and what are the signs that make it a worker state? also if said workers state is doing everything like the other capitalist states why does it still consitute a worker state?

[Djoko]

China didn't had prerogatives for socialism, and Deng Xiaoping had to return "wheel of history" back to capitalism in order to develop means of production and get people out of poverty. It was done in a maestral way. Compare Chinese transition to capitalism with transition in east Europe. Will China return to socialism one day? I hope. Many people from my country caracterise Chinese system as most similar to fascism.

[LewisQ]

China is...never having to say you're sorry.

I voted state capitalist, but not in the contentious sense of the term as applied to the USSR. I think of the Chinese system as capitalism with Taiwanese characteristics.

[Blake's Baby]

It's a bit hard to judge due to multiple voting, but between them capitalist/state capitalist (same thing, surely?) are on 103%, an all the other options put together are on 23%.

I'm heartened.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No, but unlike China (and Belarus), Saudi Arabia never experienced a proletarian revolution. Nor did Syria, Burma, Iraq and so on. That is why I tried to emphasise that focusing on state ownership alone is empiricist. A workers' state only becomes possible through a workers' revolution.

You are right in all conclusions but one, and that is that the Chinese revolution was anything but bourgeois; in-fact, I do not think it ever aspired to be much but that. It was not a proletarian revolution at all, that much is certain, not even comparable to the Russian one; and the Maoist passion for the peasants and national bourgeoisie betray the anti-proletarian reality of their movement.

[ind_com]

Voted capitalist.

[Captain Ahab]

I'm confused, if a proletarian revolution is needed for something to be a workers state wouldn't that make the Warsaw Pact countries not worker's states? Also China did not have a proletarian revolution as far as I know but a peasant one.

[John Lennin]

I'd say China now is a real hardcore-capitalist state somewhere in between state capitalism US capitalism.

[Akshay!]

No option for communist dictatorship?

Just kidding, but seriously China is an embarrassment and anyone who thinks they aren't capitalist either hasn't done any research or is just extremely delusional. We get both on the left on occasion.

WTF? You mean it's both a "communist dictatorship" AND "capitalist"??? :lol:
Let me guess - you're an anarchist. Nobody else in his right mind would say something that foolish. Just kidding.


The core of the Chinese economy, including the entire heavy industry, most of the agricultural enterprises, and the strategic banks, remain in state ownership. Private enterprises are mostly limited to the light industry and are mostly concessionary in nature - that is, they are owned by foreign entities or offshore Chinese capitalists. It seems to me that in China, the (degenerated) workers' state has not been overthrown, not yet, at least, though it is under heavy pressure by the imperialist powers, which manifests as marker "reforms" and the dragooning of workers in the private sector.


There is no Trotskyist option (a degenerated/deformed workers state,
Devrim

Sorry, I should've added the "degenerated/deformed workers' state" option. Is there some way to edit the options of the poll?
If not, you can choose "something else".

[Per Levy]

WTF? You mean it's both a "communist dictatorship" AND "capitalist"??? :lol:

you didnt got the "just kidding" part after the "communist dictatorship"? it implies that it was a joke, you know.


Let me guess - you're an anarchist. Nobody else in his right mind would say something that foolish.

ashkay the anti anarchist, thats something new. and if you would actually read what was written and not take an obvious joke serious you might wouldnt look so much like a fool.

[Fourth Internationalist]

WTF? You mean it's both a "communist dictatorship" AND "capitalist"??? :lol:
Let me guess - you're an anarchist. Nobody else in his right mind would say something that foolish.

I'm almost 100% sure that his comment about 'communist dictatorship' was meant to be a joke, especially because he said 'just kidding' immediately after. But you just had to have another one of your annoying, stupid jab at anarchists. It's tiresome.

[Akshay!]

you didnt got the "just kidding" part after the "communist dictatorship"? it implies that it was a joke, you know.

ashkay the anti anarchist, thats something new. and if you would actually read what was written and not take an obvious joke serious you might wouldnt look so much like a fool.


I'm almost 100% sure that his comment about 'communist dictatorship' was meant to be a joke, especially because he said 'just kidding' immediately after. But you just had to have another one of your annoying, stupid jab at anarchists. It's tiresome.

Nice.


WTF? You mean it's both a "communist dictatorship" AND "capitalist"??? :lol:
Let me guess - you're an anarchist. Nobody else in his right mind would say something that foolish. Just kidding.

[Per Levy]

Yeah right, I was also kidding..

right, after edditing the "just kidding" in.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Oo you discovered the edit button four minutes after Per Levy replies to your post. Good job! :lol:

[hatzel]

I voted both 'capitalist' and 'Maoist' and I think that's pretty fair *they see me trollin'*

Four people have voted 'other' and I haven't seen any of them explain (unless this degenerated workers' state chitter-chatter counts as 'other,' but even then I haven't seen four people talking about that) so it might be nice if somebody told us what they consider it as, because there are actually some interesting options that could perhaps fall under 'other' in this case...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, no. The Chinese government allowed opposition parties to operate somewhat freely during it's early days and these are the places where the bourgeois would join. The Chinese Communist Party had a ban on people who owned private property or a means of production until 20002 I believe.

I see. Thank you, I didn't know that. Still, this does not mean that the mode of production in China has reverted to capitalism. As you would probably agree, the capitalist mode of production can be administered by individuals from all classes - consider the first Labour government in Britain for example. And, it seems to me, members of the bourgeoisie, or even landowners, can participate in the administration of the workers' state. In revolutionary Hungary, if I recall correctly, the former landowners were sometimes coopted as managers of the new consolidated agricultural units, and so on. The pertinent question is whether the actions of the government are determined by the bourgeoisie, and it seems to me (though I am not that acquainted with the situation) that, in China, they are not.


for the sake of the thread can i ask you to open a thread to tell everyone what exactly a workers state is and what are the signs that make it a worker state? also if said workers state is doing everything like the other capitalist states why does it still consitute a worker state?

I might just do that - but I can't promise anything - given that there exists a lot of confusion on this point. But in broad outlines, the workers' state is the dictatorship of the proletariat, presently only exercised in forms that are limited by the presence of a bureaucratic caste (thus forming a degenerated or deformed workers' state).


You are right in all conclusions but one, and that is that the Chinese revolution was anything but bourgeois; in-fact, I do not think it ever aspired to be much but that. It was not a proletarian revolution at all, that much is certain, not even comparable to the Russian one; and the Maoist passion for the peasants and national bourgeoisie betray the anti-proletarian reality of their movement.

That might have been the case for the early People's Republic. Subsequently, however, the proletarian elements - including the pressures arising from China's relationship to the Soviet Union - and the bourgeois elements coexisted in a highly contradictory relationship, and it seems to me that, by the end of the Great Leap Forward, popular movement (sometimes supported and often limited by sections of the bureaucracy) had successfully destroyed the Chinese bourgeoisie.


I'm confused, if a proletarian revolution is needed for something to be a workers state wouldn't that make the Warsaw Pact countries not worker's states? Also China did not have a proletarian revolution as far as I know but a peasant one.

See my reply to Takayuki. I am not sure how to categorise the early People's Republics, but all of them experienced proletarian movements that forced the, usually highly reluctant, bureaucracy to abandon any vestiges of the bourgeois society. Besides, one ought to think globally - to an extent, Russian military occupation meant an extension of the Russian proletarian revolution to neighbouring regions.

[Lucretia]

See my reply to Takayuki. I am not sure how to categorise the early People's Republics, but all of them experienced proletarian movements that forced the, usually highly reluctant, bureaucracy to abandon any vestiges of the bourgeois society. Besides, one ought to think globally - to an extent, Russian military occupation meant an extension of the Russian proletarian revolution to neighbouring regions.

This is actually historically inaccurate. In many of these "people's democracies," modeled after the popular fronts of the pre-war period, the Nazis had already nationalized significant parts of the economy for war purposes before the Soviet Union ever "liberated" them. When the Soviet military did take power in those countries, their economies were heavily nationalized by default - not as the result of a mass proletarian movement. The defeat of fascist imperialists impelled the working class in many of these countries to organize themselves and, sometimes, even taken control over workplaces whose previous owners (the fascists) had been defeated.

The Soviets, working hand-in-hand with the local bourgeoisies it had politically empowered in these "people's" coalition governments, FIRST crushed these movements (where they didn't allow the fascists to do it before invading, as in the case of the Warsaw uprising). Only afterward, in response to the Marshall plan's signaling to the Soviets that Western capitalism was unwilling to cooperate economically, and with the workers no longer a threat to the SU's authority, only THEN did the Soviet Union introduce any new nationalization into the economy and expel the bourgeoisie from power both politically and economically. You'd have to believe that either the bourgeoisie could be actively involved in policymaking in and hold power in a workers' state, or you'd have to believe that the workers' state was created at a time when the workers had already been soundly defeated, through staggered nationalizations. It's a theory that doesn't hold water.

The chronology actually suggests the opposite of what you (following what were at the time small but correctable errors by Trotsky in response to a couple of Soviet incursions in 1939) want to imply about nationalization. It was used as a weapon against workers, under the political oversight of (and advocated by) the surviving bourgeoisie of those countries. The states that were consolidated by the overthrow of the fascists were not workers' states or the product of workers' revolutions, unless you want to think that workers would deliberately place members of a surviving bourgeoisie in power for the purpose of suppressing workers' uprisings - which is precisely what the Stalinist bureaucracy did in each of these cases. Adherents to the deformed workers' state theory take these errors, and blow them out of proportion into fundamental principles, guiding them to do all sorts of strange things like hailing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Interestingly, if you actually read the press of the Fourth International around the years 1945-1947, you see "orthodox" Trotskyists arguing very clearly that the states established in these "people's democracies" were capitalist in nature, not workers' states. This line didn't change until 1949 or so, and not in response to any workers' uprisings.

[Fred]

I voted "something else," and will chime in with "deformed workers' state." I read in the NY Times the other day that 80% of the Chinese economy was state owned -- I did not see what metric they used to arrive at the number -- but considering they would tend to agree that China was a capitalist country, it was eye opening. I think what comrade S. was saying was that the bourgeoisie were completely expropriated in China within a few years of the revolution. I would also point out that the Chinese economy is not only largely state owned (in and of itself not enough), but also there is long range planning. The rise of Chinese capitalists in the mainland poses an immediate and extreme threat to the remaining gains of the Chinese revolution. The CCP was pressed to take power and expropriate the bourgeoisie because the Guomindang would not form a coalition with them. Chaing banked on imperialist intervention to restore his regime to power and lost. But overhthrow capitalism, they did. And if you want to make comparisons here are two to consider -- what would the development of China have been if the KMT remained in power? And, compare China to a comparable country where there was not revolution, say India. That China has become a world power and move ahead as much as it has, despite bureaucratic mismanagement in the extreme, speaks to the power of a planned collectivized economy. Just as the rapid development of the USSR into a world power despite its gross mismanagement, a civil war, and WWII, also speaks to this.

The comrades that speak of the awful conditions many workers confront in China are speaking to a serious problem, but not a defining characteristic.

I think the Warsaw Pact nations are a special case -- where capitalism was overthrown from above by the Soviet Army. At this point it may need to be reconsidered. It is clear in the fSU, there was a counterrevolution that was devastating to a large section of the population.

And comrade Lucretia, it puzzles me how you can take a position against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[Lucretia]

And comrade Lucretia, it puzzles me how you can take a position against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

It flows from the conclusion that the Soviet Union didn't deserve unconditional military support, because the nationalized property that characterized its economy did not represent the proletariat holding state power. I've made pretty clear why I think this is the case in my previous post. Any military support would have to be conditional (e.g., resistance to an imperial invasion of Russia), and quite frankly, the reasons for the Soviet invasion did not meet those conditions by any stretch of the imagination.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is actually historically inaccurate. In many of these "people's democracies," modeled after the popular fronts of the pre-war period, the Nazis had already nationalized significant parts of the economy for war purposes before the Soviet Union ever "liberated" them. When the Soviet military did take power in those countries, their economies were heavily nationalized by default - not as the result of a mass proletarian movement. The defeat of fascist imperialists impelled the working class in many of these countries to organize themselves and, sometimes, even taken control over workplaces whose previous owners (the fascists) had been defeated.

The Soviets, working hand-in-hand with the local bourgeoisies it had politically empowered in these "people's" coalition governments, FIRST crushed these movements (where they didn't allow the fascists to do it before invading, as in the case of the Warsaw uprising). Only afterward, in response to the Marshall plan's signaling to the Soviets that Western capitalism was unwilling to cooperate economically, and with the workers no longer a threat to the SU's authority, only THEN did the Soviet Union introduce any new nationalization into the economy and expel the bourgeoisie from power both politically and economically. You'd have to believe that either the bourgeoisie could be actively involved in policymaking in and hold power in a workers' state, or you'd have to believe that the workers' state was created at a time when the workers had already been soundly defeated, through staggered nationalizations. It's a theory that doesn't hold water.

The chronology actually suggests the opposite of what you (following what were at the time small but correctable errors by Trotsky in response to a couple of Soviet incursions in 1939) want to imply about nationalization. It was used as a weapon against workers, under the political oversight of (and advocated by) the surviving bourgeoisie of those countries. The states that were consolidated by the overthrow of the fascists were not workers' states or the product of workers' revolutions, unless you want to think that workers would deliberately place members of a surviving bourgeoisie in power for the purpose of suppressing workers' uprisings - which is precisely what the Stalinist bureaucracy did in each of these cases. Adherents to the deformed workers' state theory take these errors, and blow them out of proportion into fundamental principles, guiding them to do all sorts of strange things like hailing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Interestingly, if you actually read the press of the Fourth International around the years 1945-1947, you see "orthodox" Trotskyists arguing very clearly that the states established in these "people's democracies" were capitalist in nature, not workers' states. This line didn't change until 1949 or so, and not in response to any workers' uprisings.

That said, the Fourth International made several notable mistakes in the postwar period, most prominently during the brief period in which the majority considered Tito (!) an "unconscious Trotskyist". As for the people's republics, it seems to me that, while these states were ostensibly based on the popular front, the domestic bourgeoisie never had much influence. They seem to have been mostly eliminated by 1949. Governments where the bourgeoisie still exercised influence - like the early Democratic Federal Yugoslavia - probably can't be classified as deformed workers' states.

I think you are misinterpreting disturbances due to economic hardship, that were quite common throughout Europe, as proletarian movements. As far as I can tell, though, these disturbances were never politicised. And their demands were often contrary to workers' power - the demands of East German protesters to increase the importation of Western goods for example. Therefore, I don't think their defeat can really be viewed as a defeat for the working class.

[Captain Ahab]

See my reply to Takayuki. I am not sure how to categorise the early People's Republics, but all of them experienced proletarian movements that forced the, usually highly reluctant, bureaucracy to abandon any vestiges of the bourgeois society. Besides, one ought to think globally - to an extent, Russian military occupation meant an extension of the Russian proletarian revolution to neighbouring regions.
Could you name or list any of these movements? And can you then demonstrate that they were successful? How the hell does military occupation extend the proletarian revolution? Also the claim that the Great Leap Forward destroyed the Chinese bourgeoisie is particularly curious. Can you demonstrate in any way shape or form that a popular movement managed to destroy the bourgeoisie by this time? You also can't possibly deny the existence of capitalists in China now.

[tuwix]

IMHO, China is modern fascist state. As in all fascist state bourgeoisie isn't majoro politic force as it is in classic capitalism.

[Akshay!]

IMHO, China is modern fascist state. As in all fascist state bourgeoisie isn't majoro politic force as it is in classic capitalism.

What does that even mean?? :laugh::laugh:

[Lucretia]

That said, the Fourth International made several notable mistakes in the postwar period, most prominently during the brief period in which the majority considered Tito (!) an "unconscious Trotskyist". As for the people's republics, it seems to me that, while these states were ostensibly based on the popular front, the domestic bourgeoisie never had much influence. They seem to have been mostly eliminated by 1949. Governments where the bourgeoisie still exercised influence - like the early Democratic Federal Yugoslavia - probably can't be classified as deformed workers' states.

I think you are misinterpreting disturbances due to economic hardship, that were quite common throughout Europe, as proletarian movements. As far as I can tell, though, these disturbances were never politicised. And their demands were often contrary to workers' power - the demands of East German protesters to increase the importation of Western goods for example. Therefore, I don't think their defeat can really be viewed as a defeat for the working class.

Judging by the facts I underscored two of my posts ago, I would say that the Fourth International's initial position was hardly a mistake - derived from the obvious truism that statification can function in a multitude of ways and doesn't necessarily entail in any way a proletarian consolidation of power over the state.

Instead of formulating and checking theory against history, you slip once more into the problem of crafting imaginary histories around theoretical assumptions. To some degree this was an error that Trotsky was slipping into when he made his definitive pronouncements about the Soviet army providing a "bureaucratic impulse" to workers' uprisings in Poland and Finland, though these claims were, to his credit, based on plausible interpretations of (flimsy) second-hand reports he read in the news. You say "it seems to me that, while these states were ostensibly based on the popular front, the domestic bourgeoisie never had much influence." In fact, historians have long demonstrated that the opposite was true. There were sincere and real power-sharing arrangements reached by the Soviet-bureaucratic military apparatus and the domestic bourgeoisies all throughout Eastern Europe, the product of the Soviets actually amplifying the influence those bourgeois elements would otherwise have had if left to their own devices. These were not just symbolic gestures (though they were of course, intended in part to signal to the West that the Soviet Union was open to economic cooperation following the war). Even many "orthodox" Trotskyists today concede that these states were "weak bourgeois states" that were gradually "assimilated" into the Soviet Union's orbit through the final series of nationalizations following the expulsion of the bourgeoisie as coalition partners. I advise you to read up on the history before doubling down onto such sweeping pronouncements.

As for your second paragraph in which you say I am "misinterpreting disturbances due to economic hardship, that were quite common throughout Europe, as proletarian movements," I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about or how that it is supposed to be a response to what I have been saying in this thread.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Instead of formulating and checking theory against history, you slip once more into the problem of crafting imaginary histories around theoretical assumptions. To some degree this was an error that Trotsky was slipping into when he made his definitive pronouncements about the Soviet army providing a "bureaucratic impulse" to workers' uprisings in Poland and Finland, though these claims were, to his credit, based on plausible interpretations of (flimsy) second-hand reports he read in the news. You say "it seems to me that, while these states were ostensibly based on the popular front, the domestic bourgeoisie never had much influence." In fact, historians have long demonstrated that the opposite was true. There were sincere and real power-sharing arrangements reached by the Soviet-bureaucratic military apparatus and the domestic bourgeoisies all throughout Eastern Europe, the product of the Soviets actually amplifying the influence those bourgeois elements would otherwise have had if left to their own devices. These were not just symbolic gestures (though they were of course, intended in part to signal to the West that the Soviet Union was open to economic cooperation following the war). Even many "orthodox" Trotskyists today concede that these states were "weak bourgeois states" that were gradually "assimilated" into the Soviet Union's orbit through the final series of nationalizations following the expulsion of the bourgeoisie as coalition partners. I advise you to read up on the history before doubling down onto such sweeping pronouncements.

I did try to stress that I am by no means an expert on these issues - hence the "it seems to me..." and similar formulations. Perhaps there is something to the theory of a weak bourgeois state - I implied something similar concerning DFY. Nonetheless, this does not follow from the sincerity of the bureaucracy - the bureaucracy might have sincerely intended for the bourgeoisie to be an independent force in the people's republics, but, from what I know, objective circumstances prevented that, and the most that the bourgeoisie could do was to delay the expropriations and so on. With the intensification of the contradictions between the Soviet Union and the bourgeois states, they apparently couldn't even do that.

Anyway, if you can recommend some literature, I would be grateful. I mostly base my account on Mandel. That is probably a glaring deficiency.


As for your second paragraph in which you say I am "misinterpreting disturbances due to economic hardship, that were quite common throughout Europe, as proletarian movements," I have no idea what on Earth you are talking about or how that it is supposed to be a response to what I have been saying in this thread.

You claim that the suppression of workers' disturbances in the late forties represented a political defeat for the working class - my point was that this is not necessarily the case. Certainly none of us view the Bolshevik suppression of strikes during the Civil War as a defeat for the proletariat, given that these strikes were objectively against the interest of the proletariat. Much the same applies, it seems to me (again, my knowledge of this period is not that extensive), to disturbances such as the one in Democratic Germany.

[Lucretia]

You claim that the suppression of workers' disturbances in the late forties represented a political defeat for the working class - my point was that this is not necessarily the case. Certainly none of us view the Bolshevik suppression of strikes during the Civil War as a defeat for the proletariat, given that these strikes were objectively against the interest of the proletariat. Much the same applies, it seems to me (again, my knowledge of this period is not that extensive), to disturbances such as the one in Democratic Germany.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I didn't claim that the "workers' disturbances" as you term them had any kind of Marxist-Bolshevik programmatic content. They were spontaneous and, as I said, triggered by the expropriation of the previous owner of the very factories being occupied (Nazi Germany). I noted that if we want to claim the heritage of Marx and Trotsky in explaining revolutions, specifically the revolution that results in the creation of a workers' state, you have some 'splainin' to do, to borrow a word from Ricky Ricardo. How can you credit workers with a revolution some time *after* the suppression workers' "political disturbances," however programmatically sound they were, and when the only economic transformation taking places is being carried out by bureaucratic agents?

According to the theory Trotsky formulated in the series of letters and essays he composed just before WWII, the Soviet bureaucracy pursued nationalization of the economy (specifically, in Poland) as a way of rooting out its bourgeois enemies/competitors. But because of what he perceived to be the lack of any viable alternative economic system that the bureaucrats could depend upon within a context of full nationalization, Trotsky believed that this process of nationalization was tantamount to an "impulse" that the workers would organically seize upon -- that the bureaucrats needed them to seize upon -- in order to assert their power in a revolutionary upsurge without which the bureaucrats top-down actions at expropriating the bourgeoisie would be unsuccessful. Only after the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, initiated in a top-down fashion but carried out the workers themselves, would the bureaucrats then be able to turn on the workers in a kind of sped-up version of the degeneration of the Russian workers' state.

The model is elegant in its simplicity, its logical coherence, and consistency with classical Marxism. But unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with what happened in Eastern Europe following WWII, when events flatly contradicted the necessary chronology laid out in Trotsky's "bureaucratic impulse" understanding of the link between nationalization and workers' revolutions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, but I think this underestimates the extent to which the Soviet bureaucracy still transmitted the impulses of the proletarian revolution in Russia. (Just as it transmitted the pressures of imperialism.) Furthermore, there really seems to have been popular participation in the Stalinist regimes, at least in the early period.

Apologies for the brief post, I didn't have much time to write it. I might write a more detailed response tomorrow.

[Killer Enigma]

China is a socialist country (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/). Non-capitalist market economy could also apply, and personally I would classify it as a state run by a Marxist-Leninist party too. Most of the people who hate on China don't consider any state to have been socialist, and in fact, they do not believe socialism has ever existed beyond small, local, very brief, and very obscure episodes in history. I'd encourage anyone who isn't bought into that demonstrably false dogma hook-line-and-sinker to view the hysterical, one-sided responses in this thread through that lens.

Yes, China has sweatshops. Yes, there are defects in Chinese society, inequality being a growing problem. In the capitalist world, there are countries like Sweden and Norway that have huge safety nets for workers. Does that superficial detail make Sweden not capitalist? I say no.

From the same website, this is a good article on trade unions in socialist countries (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-trade-unions-actually-existing-socialism-a-point-of-comparison-for-the-american-worker/), including China. I think it's worth quoting the section called Framework: Class-rule is not class-utopia:


Before examining the role of trade unions in the socialist countries and contrasting them with their counter-parts in capitalist countries, we want to make an important point that is critical to understanding how workers rule collectively as a class in socialist countries.

The US is a capitalist country. In other words, the ruling class in the US is a small minority of banks and corporations that exploit the labor of workers in their own country and in oppressed nations around the world. The particular form of government – whether a democratic republic, a fascist dictatorship of capital, a corporatist clientele system, a social democracy, or something else – does not change the fundamental class character of the US government and the economy, which is dominated by capitalists.

The capitalist class, however, is not homogenous. In the US, there exists a class of monopoly financial capitalists, who together with banksters from the other imperialist countries, own most of the world’s wealth and the means of production. This is the fundamental feature of imperialism. However, there are also non-monopoly capitalists, who own large businesses and corporations within the US that control a proportionally small fraction of the wealth domestically and are, in turn, controlled by the financial capitalists. Although both of these strata of capitalists are a part of the same class, they occupy different positions in the imperialist system and, at times, they have divergent interests. These divergent political interests manifest themselves in the US as the Democrats and Republicans, which are generally supported by financial capitalists and non-monopoly domestic capitalists, respectively.

Many non-monopoly domestic capitalists in the US opposed the financial bailout of the country’s major banks in 2008, even though the US government took the action to save the capitalist class from economic ruin. The massive transfer of $700 billion from taxpayers to banks, though, was not an anti-capitalist action, even though it was opposed by some capitalists. Fundamentally, it was an aspect of capitalist class rule in the US and the particular opinions of the capitalists mattered less than the greater system of class oppression that the action upheld.

This is framework is very important for our discussion of trade unions for two main reasons: First, socialism may be the class-rule of the workers, but it does not mean that it is a utopia for every single worker at every single moment. There are contradictions in actually existing socialism, not least of which is its continued existence in a globalized economy dominated by aggressive imperialist powers. However, a fixation on particular examples of worker dissatisfaction or poor working conditions in regards to China, Cuba, or any other socialist country clouds the greater trend of class rule.

Second, the fanatical hatred of actually existing socialism by some on the US Left evaluates the position of workers from the experience of workers in a capitalist country, rather than examining socialism as an entirely different class order. Sam Farber of the International Socialist Organization, for instance, is incredulous at the collaboration between the trade union leadership, the Communist Party, management, and the state in Cuba, arguing that this is evidence of the worst forms of worker exploitation. This incorrect view transposes the class order of the United States – or any capitalist country – onto the Cuban people, in which class collaboration between union leadership and management is a defining feature of capitalist domination.

However, Farbar’s Western-centric view betrays his anti-communism because he cannot recognize that the workers control the state and, in effect, have the ‘upper hand’ on management in a socialist country. They collaborate with the state in drafting labor laws and policy in much the same way the Chamber of Commerce ‘collaborates’ with politicians in drafting policy and law in the US. For these critics, certain actions are evidence of ‘state capitalist’ relations simply because they take place in capitalist societies. This is patently absurd, patently wrong, and patently anti-communist.

The point is not that socialist countries are a utopia for workers. Indeed, management often loses individual battles to workers in the US, but no rational person takes this as evidence of socialism in the world’s greatest imperialist power. The imperialist class still controls the state and the commanding heights of the economy, and they win an overwhelming majority of the individual battles between capital and labor. Socialism is not perfect for all workers at all times, but they control the state and their trade unions overwhelmingly win the battle between labor and management.

Actually existing socialism is an entirely different class order than people in the US are accustomed to, and any look at the trade unions should begin at this point.

[MarxArchist]

China's capitalist reforms were necessary because Mao attempted "communism" in a socially/economically backwards nation. I don't defend Dengs "market socialism" only speaking about why they happened (because China never had the proper material conditions for an attempt at socialism). Moral of the story is don't attempt socialism in undeveloped nations. The interesting thing about China is I think they now have the potential to actually push the world towards socialism, to economically undermine western capitalist hegemony and thus set in place material conditions for a global socialist revolution....but, I think "market socialism" has occupied to many in China with profit seeking. Dengs reforms ended up being the end of any serious attempts at communism. It's all a contradictory mess.

[Old Bolshie]

China is capitalist and couldn't be any different unless you believe that socialism in one country is possible.

[Blake's Baby]

... Most of the people who hate on China don't consider any state to have been socialist, and in fact, they do not believe socialism has ever existed beyond small, local, very brief, and very obscure episodes in history...

I think this is radically false. I think that most of us believe that 'socialism' (AKA communism) existed among homo sapiens for around 200,000-250,000 years. After all, class society is only around 8,000 years old, and it wasn't established everywhere all at the same time, so in a lot of places it's much less than 8,000 years old.

[fahadsul3man]

mixed economy with state controlling heavy industries and large and increasing numbers of private businesses and private properties under single state political party and their attitude with the proletarians after the mao era , so i dont think china has a usa styled structure

[Comrade Jacob]

I picked state-capitalism, but I think there should be an option of "Half privatised and half state-capitalism".

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I picked state-capitalism, but I think there should be an option of "Half privatised and half state-capitalism".

And what is the usefulness of that option or that term?

State-capitalism is shady and vague as it is, and if we take the SSSR as an example of state-capitalism (a state-controlled economy emulating capitalism), that is something China was but is no longer. The Chinese state maintains ownership in a number of large dominant firms, what some naïve UK trots would call the "commanding heights", but it takes this role - even more than the Soviet state even at its worst - in the shape of your average private shareholder. Private firms without state involvement make up a very significant part of the economy as well... And they even corporatised the state railways. Not even India has gone that far.

In other words, the "state" in "state-capitalism" has no meaning in the Chinese context, because the state is just another shareholder like any other. Just like the Scandinavian countries or the UK in the days of more significant state ownership were not "state-capitalist", China today is simply capitalist.

[boiler]

I vote state capitalist