China Changing?

[GoRiLLaZ]

Since after the passing of Mao Zedong, the economics in China had been richer, i heard they are now 2nd in the wrold for buisness trading right? anyway, i thought they were a socialist country, what happened? are they going to change into a capitalist sate soon?

[Xiao Banfa]

They are a capitalist state now, their economy shifted from being mainly socialist in about 1990 to mainly capitalist in the late 90's.

I went there early this year and you will find beggars, multinational stores, private commerce like any other capitalist country.

China joined the WTO in about 2002 (?). And businesspeople are now allowed into the communist party.

It's a bit of a joke

[Enragé]

firstly
china never was socialist (socialism = working class in control of the means of production =/= china)

secondly
yes china is now completely capitalist. Started under Deng Xiaoping.

[Xiao Banfa]

china never was socialist (socialism = working class in control of the means of production =/= china)


Actually China could have qualified as a deformed workers state for most of it's post-49' history seing as it's means of production and distribution were under public ownership and the bourgeiosie and feudal classes no longer controlled the means of production distribution and exchange,

There was a slow transition towards more private economy from 1978 to the 90's but for most that time the economy was mostly state-owned.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

They just like to pretend they're red...

But yeah, as most people have stated, it's completely capitalist...

[LSD]

Actually China could have qualified as a deformed workers state for most of it's post-49' history

I suppose it could have, but only if "deformed workers state" had some real-world meaning outside of Trotskyist propaganda.

It doesn't.

A society is either governed by its working class or it isn't. Some party or organization rulling "on behalf" of the working class does not constitute a "workers' state", not even if the workers were the ones who put them into power.

For a "workers' state" to truly "deform", it must first have been formed. As of yet, no "socialist" nation on earth can credibly claim to have ever been truly governed by the entirety of its proletariat, and China is certainly no exception.

The CCP may have enjoyed mass support in the 1930s and 40s but that's because local Maoist despotism was better than foreign imperial occupation. And since going back to warlord brutality didn't appeal to anyone save the warlords, the desperate peasants of Chine gave the CCP the opportunity to rule.

In the end, of course, Mao turned out to be just another warlord but on a bigger scale. Still, though, he did deliver the industrialization that Leninism is so famous for and he did help build China up from an occupied colonial mess into a world power.

That doesn't mean that Moaism is at all "good", it's just a healthy reminder that western propaganda notwithstanding, Mao was not seriously worse than the guy he replaced.

But to call what he did "communism" or even "socialism" in a Marxist sense is to miss the theoretical definitions of those terms. Maoism is best described as agrarian socialism. It certainly isn't proletarian and it really bears little resemblence to anything theorized by Marx.

That it would eventually transition into full-on gangster capitalism was kind of inevitable from the beggining. The nature of Leninism is that it inexorably leads towards a bourgeois restoration, but when it comes to Maosim that inexorability is even stronger.

The more important the role of the "leader" and the weaker the democratic traditions the easier it becomes for bureaucratic elites to take over and, eventually, transition into outright "market" bosses.


There was a slow transition towards more private economy from 1978 to the 90's but for most that time the economy was mostly state-owned.

Have you ever heard of "spontaneous privatization"?

"State-owned" in theory very rarely meant socialist in practice.

[Xiao Banfa]

Some party or organization rulling "on behalf" of the working class does not constitute a "workers' state", not even if the workers were the ones who put them into power.


You're getting it confused with "degenerated workers state".
A deformed workers state meant the workers never actively abolished bourgeois power but rather it was done for them.

I'm quite confused as to the nature of the chinese revolution, which was certainly progressive. This is because the CCP was mainly a peasant supported movement.
It was a case of the peasants choosing to support them because they where far more in touch with the needs of the peasantry than any of the other parties.

But there wasn't a huge labour movement which aided the revolution shortly before 49'.

But then again the workers and peasants weren't as alienated from the process of removing the bourgeoisie from power as their counterparts in eastern europe were after WWII.

So we are lines aren't that far apart.

[LSD]

You're getting it confused with "degenerated workers state".

No I'm not, I'm objecting to the entire notion of Trotsky's organization scheme.


A deformed workers state meant the workers never actively abolished bourgeois power but rather it was done for them.

If workers never have authority, there's no "workers' state", "deformed" or otherwise.

The notion of a "deformed workers state" assumes that that there is some continuity between a state-capitalist despotism like the DPRK and a theoretical genuine communist society. The Trotskyist line of "political revolution" ignores the inherent power of the state and the ultimately substitionist nature of political Leninism.

China experienced a geniune social revolution, but to call what followed a "workers state" in any sense is utter propaganda. The authoritarian agrarian socialist Beijing regime was no closer to "socialism" than western Europe. And to grant it the title of "workers' state", even "deformed", is to pay far too great a compliment to far too vile a regime.


I'm quite confused as to the nature of the chinese revolution, which was certainly progressive.

Progressive doesn't mean proletarian.

The Maoist take-over ended 150 years of foreign occupation and colonial subjugation. It was a definite step forward for the Chinese people.

Notwithstanding all the red flags and "little red books", however, China was still nowhere near the "road to socialism".

[Xiao Banfa]

That it would eventually transition into full-on gangster capitalism was kind of inevitable from the beggining. The nature of Leninism is that it inexorably leads towards a bourgeois restoration, but when it comes to Maosim that inexorability is even stronger.

There is a tendency towards excessive centralization in Leninism but this is because countries supposedly attempting to follow Marxist-Leninism around the world have been subject to imperialist barrages and a central command is very useful in fighting imperialism.

I agree that their needs to be democratic participation by the workers, but there needs to be also a formal process that selects competent individuals to lead. These leaders with be delegated authority by the people.

Left communist participatory democracy doesn't have a very good track record of repelling imperialism. Leninist democracy does.

[Xiao Banfa]

The notion of a "deformed workers state" assumes that that there is some continuity between a state-capitalist despotism like the DPRK's and a theoretical genuine communist society.

I don't understand how an economy not geared to lining the pockets of the bourgeoisie can be considered "capitalist".

By the way, I'm not a DPRK supporter- they, in my opinion, go beyond the concept of workers states- deformed, degenerated or whatever.

[GoRiLLaZ]

So does it mean tht the whole of the CCP are always greedy?
and dosen't give a shit about communism, they were just using their name? :unsure:

[Zero]

Hey LSD, have you ever thought about making your own website? I love your stuff.

[Janus]

The PRC is basically capitalist today.


So does it mean tht the whole of the CCP are always greedy?
and dosen't give a shit about communism, they were just using their name?
Currently, a lot of the members are corrupt particularly the higher ones. Just look at the Shanghai Clique that holds some of the top positions in the party.

Also, a lot of students and people are joining the party these days because it's seen as a good career move, something that was not the case during the days of Mao.

[Janus]

Notwithstanding all the red flags and "little red books", however, China was still nowhere near the "road to socialism".
Depends on your definition of socialist.

The government controlled the means of production, some consider that to be socialist but control was definitely not in the hands of the workers.

[Janus]

The CCP may have enjoyed mass support in the 1930s and 40s but that's because local Maoist despotism was better than foreign imperial occupation. And since going back to warlord brutality didn't appeal to anyone save the warlords, the desperate peasants of Chine gave the CCP the opportunity to rule.
During the 30's and 40's, the CCP only controlled small portions of China; it was not "local Maoist despotism".


In the end, of course, Mao turned out to be just another warlord but on a bigger scale. Still, though, he did deliver the industrialization that Leninism is so famous for and he did help build China up from an occupied colonial mess into a world power.
Not exactly, a warlord has no popular base of support and only rules through the armed forces.


Have you ever heard of "spontaneous privatization"?

"State-owned" in theory very rarely meant socialist in practice.
I would hardly call state-sponsored policies "spontaneous".

[La Comédie Noire]

It's too bad. The U.S just bribed Chinease officials into letting them do business there. 49% of the country is owned by private organizations, mostly U.S, China tries to keep an upper hand though they say "we may let you have 49% but remeber who has the other 51%".

Now things are becoming dangerous two world super powers, both capitalist, both want control. Of course they will make the working class fight amongst themselves in the name of nationalism...

sorry that I just went on and on, it is just something I feel a special dread for.

[redhmong]

That's a joke. China is on the way of socialism? No.
The so-called Road of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a big joke! Yes, Deng Xiaoping make a capitalical CCP with socialism coat.
The wokers in China may be the deepest ones that be exploited. In China, the rich is the ruler, almost all policy is for the capitalist.

[RedDan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:12 AM
So does it mean tht the whole of the CCP are always greedy?
and dosen't give a shit about communism, they were just using their name? :unsure:
Like Janus said, even though being a member of the communist party wasn't always just a career move, it used to mean something in the days of Mao.
I don;t believe they were ALWAYS greedy, Mao was one of the least corrupt 'communist' leaders I can think of, he even gave up leadership at one time but had to come back and impliment the Cultural Revolution (no matter how bloody it was) showed that Mao did want to stop the corruption and did give a shit about communism, to a cirtain extent.