If China was socialist [Archive]

Comrade Marcel

19th March 2006, 21:26

Check out this link:

Is China Socialist? (http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/china.htm)

Unfortunately, Marx2Mao seems to be down (so some of those links may not work). There was some good stuff there.

Be sure to check out The Great Reversal: the privatization of China, 1978-1989 (http://www.lastsuperpower.net/docs/reversal)

If you're asking a more sociological/mass psychological question of WHY the people didn't stop the reversal of socialism; I don't think there is any quick answers. But one might want to ask if there wasn't any benefits from capitalism (modernization) and social-imperialism (influx of cheap goods).

You also may want to ask why revolutions don't occur in other countries, and if the reasons are not similiar.

Lamanov

19th March 2006, 21:53

China was not socialist in the time of Mao. It was capitalist as it is today, only in different superstructural and economic form.

Big part of state owned (bueraucracy controled) capital was - in time - turned into private capital and it now belongs in the private sector, which takes up almost 50% of Chinese national wealth.

Karl Marx's Camel

19th March 2006, 22:20

My point exactly. The Mao-supporters often say that the power was all in the hands of the people when China was under his control. It is just so extremely funny that the Chinese people suddenly decided that they were tired of socialism and wanted to be oppressed by the capitalist class, just after Mao died!

Comrade Marcel

19th March 2006, 22:39

Not exactly.

No one says that China was socialist from the time Mao was alive and the CCP was in power until the time he died. It's - of course - far from that simple.

NWOG, obviously the people didn't have the power in the same way they did under Mao. If you are lucky enough live in a city with a Chinatown, go to one of the bookstores and under the English section you can find lots of books from the Deng Xiaopeng era released by the CCP that detail the need to smash "the communal pot", "Iron rice bowl", etc. and the campaign was to wipe out Soviet style democracy and work more towards a "modern" (i.e. capitalist/business) way of governing.

And as I said, capitalist economics did some benefits to the Chinese people. The same reason why workers don't rebel in the imperialist countries could be similiar in China.

Mao even said himself that China was state-capitalist when he was in power... It didn't become socialist for some time, and certainly it was not reversed right away after he died. Deng Xiaopeng had to rally the people to his side in order to succesfully make changes!

Read about the cultural revolution, which a big part of was Mao rallying the people against Deng's capitalist road.

After Mao died, Deng had the gang-of-four" to dispose of.

What you have to understand, is that Deng, et al used Mao's own words against his line, created a lot of confusion among the masses and distorded Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong thought. It's not as simple as you (or even me) would like it to be.

Read read read, and come to your own conclusions!

Severian

20th March 2006, 01:22

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2006, 04:42 PM
After Mao died, Deng had the gang-of-four" to dispose of.
Which he did with the help of Hua, Mao's handpicked successor.

And nobody came to the defense of the Gang of Four, either - they were massively unpopular. You're just evading the issue.

NWOG's hit on the obvious truth: there was no counterrevolution. Everything you've

In contrast, there is plenty of resistance now - hundreds of cases of worker or peasant unrest every day in China.

Why? Because now there is a major social and economic transformation underway - an attempt to dismantle the workers' state (that is, the progressive, postcapitalist property relations) and restore capitalism.

This is not easy. It is not quick. Just recently the PRC had to back off from a proposal to legally protect private property in land (rural land is still all state property, on long-term nontransferable lease to the peasants.)

Quite a contrast from the supposed painless restoration of capitalism just because the wrong faction is in power!

A past thread where I discussed this with 1949, the one Maoist ever on this board who was actually willing to think. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32677&hl=)

GoaRedStar

20th March 2006, 01:55

You should see this thread.

The Trot in this thread disagrees but what can you expect from these closet bourgeois revolutionaries. :)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47507

chebol

20th March 2006, 05:50

The Class Nature of the Chinese State

The Activist - Volume 9, Number 1, 1999

By Doug Lorimer

[The general line of this report was adopted by the 18th DSP Congress, January 5-10, 1999.]

http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/19990105.htm

Comrade Marcel

20th March 2006, 07:29

This is good.

No one said Mao never made mistakes. I'm not saying China is necessarily wrong. but this views should all be examined.

I urge everyone to look at al the viewpoints represented here.

Thank you Severian, GoaRedStar and chebol for your posts.

Hiero

20th March 2006, 10:51

What happened to 1949?

The Mao-supporters often say that the power was all in the hands of the people when China was under his control.

Maybe Mao's idolisers.

The whole thing that makes Maoism unique and original is that Mao said the proletarait do not always have all power under socialism.

Most of the industry and argiculture were in the hands of the proletariat. Everything was collectivised or nationalised. The economic base was working for the proletariat not for the bourgeoisie.

However in the superstructure (culture, political, social etc) the bourgeois had much power. That was the idea of the cultural revolution, to remove all bourgeois influences from the superstructure or they would eventually turn over the economy to the bourgeoisie. That began to happen after the death of Mao and the trial of the Gang of Four.

You should read some Mao and Maoist writers.

Andy Bowden

20th March 2006, 13:07

I think the question I'd ask is how exactly did the "revisionists" take control so easily, if China as a Socialist state had a popular democracy in which everyone had a part in decision making.

The simple fact is that it was not such a state, and that is why it was so easy for the "revisionists" to take control.

ComradeOm

20th March 2006, 15:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:54 AM
You should read some Mao and Maoist writers.
You should read some Marx.

If the means of production had been socialised and the economic base was controlled by the proletariat then the political superstructure cannot help but be proletarian. It is impossible to have a bourgeois state presiding over a socialist economy.

Karl Marx's Camel

20th March 2006, 15:48

However in the superstructure (culture, political, social etc) the bourgeois had much power. That was the idea of the cultural revolution, to remove all bourgeois influences from the superstructure or they would eventually turn over the economy to the bourgeoisie. That began to happen after the death of Mao and the trial of the Gang of Four.

If the Chinese people had elected their leaders, this would have not been a problem.

Janus

20th March 2006, 22:05

If the Chinese people had elected their leaders, this would have not been a problem.
There is still grassroots democracy in the countryside but it doesn't make much of a difference. The elctions have no major effect on national politics since the locally elected officials have no national power.

Punk Rocker

20th March 2006, 22:22

Actually dudes China's parliament is all elected by the people. And the parliament runs the industry and shit like that. It's at least a social republic.

Yeah the dudes running shit in China now are the dudes that beat Mao in his cultural revolution, so obviously they fucked it up from the way mao wanted it to be.

Comrade Marcel

20th March 2006, 22:41

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 20 2006, 10:25 PM
Actually dudes China's parliament is all elected by the people. And the parliament runs the industry and shit like that. It's at least a social republic.

Yeah the dudes running shit in China now are the dudes that beat Mao in his cultural revolution, so obviously they fucked it up from the way mao wanted it to be.
Actually, they didn't "beat Mao" in the cultural revolution; they lost.

They did "beat" the gang of four after the death of Mao; hence the reversal of socialism.

NWOG, I wish you would quit saying this and that happened "so easy" when it was far from that. Really, go read something. None of this shit happened overnight; and it took much rallying and ideological peddling in order for Deng and his cohorts to make these changes.

Hiero

21st March 2006, 00:32

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 21 2006, 02:31 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 21 2006, 02:31 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 10:54 AM
You should read some Mao and Maoist writers.
You should read some Marx.

If the means of production had been socialised and the economic base was controlled by the proletariat then the political superstructure cannot help but be proletarian. It is impossible to have a bourgeois state presiding over a socialist economy. [/b]
You shouldn't be so dogmatic. History has provern that bourgeois ideas can not just magically disappear after the economic base is taken over. In China there was a proletariat state controlling the means of production, the means of production were nationalised and working in the interest of the proletariat.

However you can not expect centries of reactionary thought to just dissapear over night, it is foolishness.

Severian

21st March 2006, 00:48

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2006, 04:44 PM
NWOG, I wish you would quit saying this and that happened "so easy" when it was far from that. Really, go read something. None of this shit happened overnight; and it took much rallying and ideological peddling in order for Deng and his cohorts to make these changes.
But within a short time after Mao's death, Maoists internationally were claiming that China was a capitalist country, full stop. And you go on to say:

They did "beat" the gang of four after the death of Mao; hence the reversal of socialism.

If the defeat of the gang of four had that significance, why didn't the masses care at all? If anything, most working people seemed to be happy over their downfall.

You can't just evade this. And saying "go read something" is no answer. You've presumably read all this stuff...and it hasn't made you any better able to explain it. Judging by this thread.

***

The problem most people have with this stuff, is they look at the political regime. That's certainly true of Maoists. IMO it's true of most leftists looking at China today, the collapse of the USSR, etc.

If a leftist likes the regime, it is proclaimed socialist. If you don't like it, you proclaim it capitalist. This is profoundly superficial and idealist.

It's about on the same level as Beavis and Butthead's famous paradigm: "I like things that are cool. I don't like things that suck." This is circular. Because coolness, or socialism, is defined as things you like; suckiness, or capitalism, is defined as things you don't.

But it's necessary to look at the economic foundation, the social gains produced by the revolution. The property relations (property is a social relation between people.)

These were not reversed because of the fall of the "Gang of Four", or the fall of the Berlin Wall for that matter. It was never the Gang of Four, or the Kremlin, or any other apparatchiks, who were the primary defense of the nationalized property relations.

It was millions of working people. Their expectations, their consciousness...what they're used to, which is not capitalism.

If anything, the fall of repressive regimes has made the restoration of capitalism harder. It opens up more political space for working people to organize and fight.

Probably the Chinese CP, with its strong repressive machine, has been able to do more to create a stable, profitable arena for capitalist investment than any of the openly pro-capitalist regimes in the former Soviet bloc.

Salvador Allende

21st March 2006, 01:44

China is still Socialist. The Gang of Four were a Revisionist clique allied with Lin (who tried to assassinate Mao and then defect to the USSR). The Gang was not Socialist and Mao turned against them later in his life. The key example here is when Mao had to appoint a successor to Premier Zhou Enlai, he didn't choose a Gang member, but Hua Guofeng, an anti-Gang figure. He slipped a note into Hua's hands when he was on his deathbed that said "With you in charge, I am at ease" and Chairman Hua dethroned the Gang and placed an end to their terror.

Socialism was not reversed, what is occuring now is that China is in the Primary stage of Socialism, a stage where they are trying to industrialize and create an advanced Socialist economy (where the proletariat are the majority). They are using Market Socialist methods as Lenin was trying in the USSR with the NEP. There is nothing wrong with this and it is completely in-line with Socialist policies, for China has not advanced to a very advanced level of Socialism yet as they began as a very poor and backward nation. You cannot skip Capitalism, and while Marx thought the industrialized world would hit the Revolution first, it was the third-world and we are now faced with how to hit Socialism from this position. China is solving this by looking back to Comrade Lenin's position. Mao once said this about the People's Republic of China:

"The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state."*

I think it holds true today.

*- cited from "On State Capitalism" from the Fifth Edition of the Selected Works of Chairman Mao Zedong

Comrade Marcel

21st March 2006, 03:06

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 21 2006, 12:51 AM--> (Severian @ Mar 21 2006, 12:51 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 20 2006, 04:44 PM
NWOG, I wish you would quit saying this and that happened "so easy" when it was far from that. Really, go read something. None of this shit happened overnight; and it took much rallying and ideological peddling in order for Deng and his cohorts to make these changes.
But within a short time after Mao's death, Maoists internationally were claiming that China was a capitalist country, full stop. And you go on to say:

They did "beat" the gang of four after the death of Mao; hence the reversal of socialism.

If the defeat of the gang of four had that significance, why didn't the masses care at all? If anything, most working people seemed to be happy over their downfall.
[/b]
Sorry, but I never said China wasn't socialist anymore right after the gang was eliminated. I sad the reversal of socialism began.

IMO China is still socialist today.

Many would disagree.

This all goes to the heart of what you, me, he/she, they, ect. think socialism is. In other words, there doesn't seem to be much consensus among leftists, Marxists are even contemporary Maoists on what constitutes socialism.

People seemed happy at th e downfall of the gang because Deng succesfully rallied the masses to that line, portrayed himself as the one Mao would have chosen as his succesor, etc.

Like I said before, he couldn't have started the reversal of socialism without the people being rallied to his line.

UltraLeftGerry

21st March 2006, 07:37

SalvadorAllende, do you believe that at some point in the not too distant future that the CCP will assert state control over all of the private companies now operating in China? And do you not realize what with the amount of foreign capital now in China any attempt to socialize everything again could lead to foreign intervention.
Of course I doubt any of this will happen as your appraisal of China is the silliest thing I've ever heard. :lol:

Hiero

21st March 2006, 10:31

"The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state."*

I think it holds true today.

You must be crazy then.

First of all if it is true then Mao must have went crazy during the late 60's when he first started saying the new bourgeois in the party would reverse socialism. It is crazy to quote Mao to give support to the current state of China, when Mao fought very much against what China became after 1976. If we believe that quote can be used to describe China today, then Mao's enemies where in fact his friends and Mao was either crazy or playing some game.

The quote can not be applied to China today. The most obvious thing is that Capitalist make up a large percent of the CCP. The economy is in the hands of the capitalist, no longer in the hands of the proletariat. What was private property under Mao was still ultimately under control of the proletariat. Now most of what was nationalised is privatised, and what was privatised is fully in the hands of the bourgeois.

ComradeOm

21st March 2006, 15:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:35 AM
You shouldn't be so dogmatic. History has provern that bourgeois ideas can not just magically disappear after the economic base is taken over. In China there was a proletariat state controlling the means of production, the means of production were nationalised and working in the interest of the proletariat.
In other words there is no hope? Because no matter how successful the revolution there is always the possibility that "bourgeois ideas" will inflitrate the new government?

I call idealist bullshit. If someone is getting "bourgeois ideas" then it is because they occupy a bourgeois position... something that is impossible if the economy is controled by the proletariat. How often does it have to be restated that you are what you do! Of course there's always the possibility that they were never proletarian to begin with...

Janus

22nd March 2006, 00:12

Actually dudes China's parliament is all elected by the people. And the parliament runs the industry and shit like that.
Delegates to the NPC are formally elected by provincial congresses. In practice however, the CCP and the government leadership has major control over the delegate selection. The CCP dominates so much of the process that it is extremely difficult for someone to be elected to the NPC without the approval of the higer-ups in the CCP.

Direct grassroots democarcy only occurs in the countryside where electionsfor village leader, village councils, and local congresses.

Hiero

22nd March 2006, 00:57

In other words there is no hope? Because no matter how successful the revolution there is always the possibility that "bourgeois ideas" will inflitrate the new government?

No. For starters you can't think that "oh that ideology has a bit more struggling to do, so ill choose a easier ideology that gives me more hope". We have to choose ideology that shows ever aspect of proletariat struggle.

But there is hope. After revolution there must be mass participation in arming the masses in Communist ideology. The masses must take up the struggle in the superstructure. The Cultural Revolution is a means to make ever proletariat and ally of the proletariat a strong Communist.

I call idealist bullshit. If someone is getting "bourgeois ideas" then it is because they occupy a bourgeois position... something that is impossible if the economy is controled by the proletariat. How often does it have to be restated that you are what you do! Of course there's always the possibility that they were never proletarian to begin with...

The proletariat in most cases have a bourgeois ideology now. That is because the economy is in the hands of the bourgeoisie. How can you expect after revolution over the economic base for the proletariat to be armed to their best ability in Communist ideology. This is unrealistic. Bourgeois ideas will still exist, a new bourgeois will arise in the party as they set up their control over resources.

It is foolish to think 1) the Proletariat will become the best communist after revolution without Cultural revolution. 2) that the bourgeois stop fighting after revolution.

If this is not realised then the proletariat will be won over by the bourgeois.

Severian

22nd March 2006, 08:51

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2006, 09:09 PM
Sorry, but I never said China wasn't socialist anymore right after the gang was eliminated. I sad the reversal of socialism began.

IMO China is still socialist today.

Many would disagree.
Many, including most Maoist organizations.

What's more Mao took an analogous position on the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

When Khrushev began to criticize Stalin's record, Mao declared that capitalism had been restored there, as well as in other countries which accepted Soviet aid.

He used this to justify allying with the U.S. and all kinds of rightist forces in the world against the USSR, etc.

If you've decided this approach is wrong...then Mao committed a hideous betrayal by allying with the U.S. against socialist countries. An even worse betrayal than the leaders of the Second International committed by supporting WWI, which was merely against other imperialists.

People seemed happy at th e downfall of the gang because Deng succesfully rallied the masses to that line, portrayed himself as the one Mao would have chosen as his succesor, etc.

And water is wet because of its wetness. This explains nothing.

Why was Deng successful in this? You can't answer.

It was because the "Gang of Four" were hated for their bureaucratic tyranny and their consistent opposition to any improvement in wages, among other things....also they were isolated even within the bureaucracy and repressive machine, because they were talentless nonentitites raised from the lower levels of the bureaucracy...by Mao, who wanted lieutenants wholly dependent on him.

The various charges levelled by Hua and Deng against the "gang of four" were in fact a thinly veiled indictment of Mao as well. All of the things the "gang of four" did while Mao was alive, anyone could conclude Mao must have shared responsiblity for them. The luxurious lifestyle Chiang Ch'ing enjoyed while married to Mao...obviously must have been shared by Mao.

And Hua was in fact Mao's handpicked sucessor -like Lin Piao before him. So why did Mao keep choosing these "capitalist restorers" as his heirs?

Comrade Om is right about the logical conclusion of all this. If everyone in the Soviet leadership except Stalin, and everyone in the Chinese leadership but Mao, were all traitors to the revolution....and what's more the masses didn't support the few true defenders of socialism.....then what hope for communism is there?

That's the blind alley you're led into...if you start with the assumption that Mao was a political representative of the working class. In reality he was the head of a privileged bureaucratic caste, and every bit of "ideology" he generated was just an excuse for whatever policy or factional maneuver he found convenient at the moment.

Salvador Allende

22nd March 2006, 20:59

Mao made many errors later in his life, this is certain, however, he ultimately did appoint Hua Guofeng as the Premier and his successor rather than appoint any of the Gang of Four. The Cultural Revolution nearly destroyed Socialism and Deng Xiaoping and many other Comrades had to aid in the reversal of the Anarchistic elements and brought China along the Socialist road.

The USSR went Revisionist for a simple reason, although Comrade Koba initially said that the class struggle would seemingly intensify under Socialism, because the Bourgeois would grow more desperate and use more extreme means to get into power, he also thought that eventually when Socialism reached it's advanced stage that a reversal was impossible (also true). He declared the bourgeois were eliminated around 1938 and clearly he did not correctly estimate the USSR's progress. No one thought a Capitalist restoration was possible and so it was easy to destroy Socialism when no one even considered it a possibility. China may have taken a slightly revisionist turn with the GPCR, but now it is taking a Socialist road as is Vietnam, Laos, Korea and Cuba.

Today China is advancing strongly as the leader of the Democratic camp which includes the Socialist nations and the Anti-Imperialist ones and the people of the world fighting neo-colonialism against the Anti-Democratic camp which is no doubt led by the US. We must all support the Democratic camp and their efforts.

cecikierk

22nd March 2006, 22:26

In Mao's era, it is indeed socialist in some aspects, such as public healthcare and education. However, most of the other aspects are not, (Don't get me wrong here, there is no such thing as "perfect" country) it was more or less some form of dictatorship, especially in the Cultual Revolution. Things changed after Mao died in 1976, and the focus shifted to improving the economy of the country. People's standard of living became higher, but free public healthcare and education became the things of the past. So I guess that'll answer your question.

Fidelbrand

24th March 2006, 18:53

Some of you said that China was not socialist even when Mao was alive, I think that it is just ignorance and bullcrap.

What do you call the Great Leap Foward? A leap foward to a higher class ( :D ) or was it a mass movement with a societal concern to boost productions?

People's movements and social programs are capitalisitc?

Communes built were for bourgeois pleasure?

HA! :D

Salvador Allende

30th March 2006, 22:44

The Great Leap was an overreaction to the ideas of pessimism and Ultra-Rightism which manifested itself and was purged in the Anti-Rightist campaign. The Great Leap was an ultra-leftist maneuver based on utopianism and not actual analysis. It took years to get the agriculture back to the level it was previous to the Great Leap. It was a strong mistake of Mao's and one he admitted self-criticism on. China today has a rapidly growing economy, is beginning to divert money from the cities to the countrysides to solve the contradictions between the urban and rural workers (the primary contradiction of today's People's China) and the people's standard of living is improving everyday.

Socialism is not shared poverty. Socialism is the stage of development after Capitalism, it is superior to it in everyway. If there is not development showing and proving this superiority, then something is going wrong. The goal of Socialism is to raise the standard of living of the people and to advance along a road of development of raising the productive forces to advance eventually, out of Socialism and into Communism. The productive forces needed for Communism are huge and cannot be within any system of poverty, if Socialism is poverty, it is not superior to Capitalism and will not achieve the level of development neccesary for Communism. China today is advancing along the road of giving priority to developing the productive forces, as Marx said would be needed to prepare for the advance into Communism.