China Turns Left

[Xiao Banfa]

Investor dread at China’s left turn

Overseas firms fear a policy shift, Michael Sheridan of the Sunday Times writes from Shanghai


China has taken a turn to the left just as foreign investors are lining up to place their bets on a capitalist future by buying shares in its biggest bank.

A world record $19 billion (£10 billion) was raised in the biggest flotation ever when the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China sold shares to investors ahead of its debut on the Hong Kong and Shanghai exchanges last week.

The state will retain majority control over the bank, making its partial privatisation a model for the way China’s new rulers see the future.

Significant new policies mean a decisive shift back towards state intervention. This is likely to have important implications for foreign investors and manufacturers and may lead to higher wage costs, stronger unions and stricter regulation.

Denise Yam at Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong said: “Administrative controls on lending and capital expenditure in specific industries, as well as stricter rules on land use, appear to have brought down gains in investment.”

She noted that China’s policymakers “all reiterated the need to maintain and even strengthen controls on the economy”.

Two new documents from the Chinese government, disclosed officially but little noticed abroad, left no doubt that “leftist” factions have won the argument to rebalance economic policy after two decades of a dash for growth at any cost.

Even the state news agency, Xinhua, said the new policies responded to “rampant pollution, growing wealth disparity and complaints about the high costs of education, housing and medical services”.

Yan Shuhan, director of “scientific socialism” at the Central Party School, complained to Xinhua that the richest 10% in China controlled more than 40% of the wealth and the poorest 10% had less than 2%.

Reform has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty but now the party’s leaders want to tilt the scales towards equality. The consequences for international capital, labour, trade and investment are only just beginning to be felt.

But they are certain to be on a global scale — almost everything is in China, which has just reported a trade surplus of £58 billion in the first nine months of this year and said that its economy had grown at a rate of 10.7% over the same period.

Among the effects already felt by business are tighter controls on foreign investment, pressure to raise wages, official demands for union recognition in every foreign enterprise, state curbs to cool property prices, restrictions on foreign property ownership and a heavier hand of regulation over commercial activity.

Tax breaks for foreign investors could come under scrutiny next, while the government is already phasing out subsidies for exporters.

“In short,” commented a Chinese financial journalist in Shanghai, “the cost of doing business is going up.”

The reasons range from the Communist party’s fear of rising discontent to nationalism and the renaissance of “New Left” theoreticians. “China has now come to a critical moment in building a comprehensively well-off society,” said vice-premier Wu Yi, a veteran advocate of “reform and opening up”.

The new generation of leaders has reacted to riots and protests with stern repression — but it also sees the need for pre-emptive concessions to stave off challenges.

“If China’s reform doesn’t emphasise socialism, justice and social responsibility, it will fail,” said Liu Guoguang, a professor at Beijing University. “Government must be able to play an intervening role. We should not blindly worship the market and we cannot hand over all the economy to the market.”

All the evidence is that the two men driving policy, president Hu Jintao and premier Wen Jiabao, have listened to these arguments, which are laid out in the two government documents.

They will make uncomfortable reading for some global businesses and investors, such as manufacturers sourcing ultra-cheap goods in Chinese factories, who have assumed there will always be a huge compliant workforce and suppliers willing to tolerate razor-thin profit margins.

But other companies stand to gain from opportunities presented by a more prosperous workforce as the domestic appetite grows for products and services — insurance, financial services, healthcare and human- resources providers could all benefit.

“Support given to the domestic sector, such as raising minimum wages in cities and handing subsidies and support to rural households, have given a boost to consumer demand,” said Morgan Stanley’s Yam.

One of the government documents summarised the proceedings at an executive committee of the State Council headed by Wen Jiabao. It promised aid for farmers and said the state would intervene to stabilise grain and fertiliser prices.

It ordered local authorities to make sure private employers paid migrant workers on time. And it commanded them to curb soaring property prices by imposing controls over land supply, bank lending and market access.

Anger is boiling in Chinese cities over housing costs — speculators and corrupt officials made fortunes while an emerging middle class has been priced out of ownership.

This led to the biggest purge in recent history when Hu Jintao sacked Shanghai’s party chief last month and used the housing crisis to rout the faction most closely associated with freewheeling capitalism.

“Market order should be further rectified,” said vice-premier Zeng Peiyan, announcing a fresh effort to impose regulations on property last week.

The second document, which emerged from a meeting of the Communist party’s central committee, enshrined the theory that unites all these regulatory moves in a coherent doctrine.

This is Hu Jintao’s pursuit of a “harmonious society” in which grievances are smoothed out under the party’s guidance.

The document called for “co-ordinated development, social equity and justice”— a far cry from the great reformer Deng Xiaoping’s reported declaration three decades ago that “to get rich is glorious”.

The new leaders called for “transforming the economic growth pattern” and the premier stated unequivocally that the eradication of poverty was a top priority.

Since 150m Chinese exist on less than $1 a day and 200m migrants have surged into the country’s seething cities, the regime has a lot on its hands. It has told officials to prepare a tough new labour law to level unequal pay, make it harder to sack workers, curb short-term contracts, enforce collective bargaining and raise workplace standards.

The official All-China Federation of Trade Unions, which has already won access to workers at the American retailer Wal-Mart, has called for all foreign companies to recognise Chinese unions. Loud protests from some multinationals are unlikely to win friends or compromises.

In the present climate, many leftists and nationalists are ready to think what seems unthinkable to foreign investors. “I do not mean that we should protect our old industry, but I do mean that if China’s economic lifelines fall into foreigners’ hands, our society will not be able to endure,” wrote Yang Fan, a well-known professor.

Commenting on a popular website, an economist named Jiang Hai said four things struck him about China’s shift to the left on his return after three years abroad.

First, he said dissatisfied young people were leaning to the left “because they have no memories of starvation in Mao’s time”.

Second, ordinary citizens had turned left because they were sick of the bureaucratic corruption that had flourished under reform.

Third, Jiang argued, the barons of state-owned industries were hanging on to their power and trying to stop free-market reform.

And, finally, he said, Hu Jintao and his comrades were afraid of a complicated modern economy but familiar with orthodox ideology.

However, there will be no long march back to socialism. As the official China Daily noted: “The fact that the Chinese Communist party now names ‘building a harmonious society’ as its basic guiding principle suggests that it has abandoned the concept of ‘class struggle’.” And that, surely, must be good for business

[Severian]

The new generation of leaders has reacted to riots and protests with stern repression — but it also sees the need for pre-emptive concessions to stave off challenges.

In other words, the Chinese government is scared of the workers and peasants. It's bending under the pressure of their resistance to the CCP's moves towards capitalism.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:51 am
In other words, the Chinese government is scared of the workers and peasants. It's bending under the pressure of their resistance to the CCP's moves towards capitalism.
Which really came as a surprise...Considering how successful the CCP had been in suppressing their resistance.

[Xiao Banfa]

What a superficial examination of this massively significant geopolitical development.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Exactly.

This is not minor news. Clearly, China is not the capitalist power-house which both the Left and the Right make it out to be.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The state will retain majority control over the bank, making its partial privatisation a model for the way China’s new rulers see the future.
Is this the most important sentence in that article?

Because I don't see how it is really something important.

[Severian]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+December 19, 2006 11:06 am--> (RedStarOverChina @ December 19, 2006 11:06 am)
[email protected] 19, 2006 06:51 am
In other words, the Chinese government is scared of the workers and peasants. It's bending under the pressure of their resistance to the CCP's moves towards capitalism.
Which really came as a surprise...Considering how successful the CCP had been in suppressing their resistance. [/b]
It has? Been successful, that is.

Seems to me that there are still a lot of protests and strikes going on. And you sometimes hear about cases where the protesters win pretty large street-fights, or where the cops don't even try to dislodge strikers blocking railroad spurs to factories.

Tino, SoS: isn't it a lot more superficial - and naive - to think this is being granted out of the goodness of some bureaucrat's heart?

As a communist, someone oriented to class struggle, I tend to think anything working people get - it's because we fought for it. Maybe you have a very different orientation.

[Guerrilla22]

It's clear that the Chinese people for the most part are opposed to the direction their country has been moving in.

[NZ_Commie]

Tino, SoS: isn't it a lot more superficial - and naive - to think this is being granted out of the goodness of some bureaucrat's heart?

I never said that, nor does the article say that. It's happening for a whole range of reasons. I think some party "cadre"are probably into this because of their sympathies towards some kind of "socialism".

Trust me, I've lived in China. I also went back kinda recently, and this shit is a long time coming and well needed.


As a communist, someone oriented to class struggle, I tend to think anything working people get - it's because we fought for it. Maybe you have a very different orientation.

So the gains of the Chinese Revolution weren't wrought from the hands of the imperialists by the masses of China?

Hold on- I'm not sure what your talking about, Severian.
I thought you were a Mandel-Trot. I'm no expert, but isn't this standard stuff?

[NZ_Commie]

Shit, I'm just on my mates computer and I fucking forgot that he was logged in as him.
This is Tino Rangatiratanga saying I'm sorry and I hope that wasn't hard-out not kosher what I just did.

[Janus]

I really don't see why anyone should retain optimism over this incident as it's clear that it's more of a moderate policy than any sign of China turning left again.


In other words, the Chinese government is scared of the workers and peasants. It's bending under the pressure of their resistance to the CCP's moves towards capitalism.
Not only that but it also seems to be a sign of the increasing power of the moderates as represented by Hu Jintao who are trying to maintain stability by lessening the wealth gap and improving conditions for those who have been left behind by China's development.


It has? Been successful, that is.

Seems to me that there are still a lot of protests and strikes going on. And you sometimes hear about cases where the protesters win pretty large street-fights, or where the cops don't even try to dislodge strikers blocking railroad spurs to factories.
In terms of suppressing the news, yes but it hasn't been very successful in actually suppressing the issue itself.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Tino, SoS: isn't it a lot more superficial - and naive - to think this is being granted out of the goodness of some bureaucrat's heart?

Of course not, comrade. I don't believe that social changes occur because of the goodness (or lack thereof) of a few individuals.

But don't you agree that it would be wrong to assume that somehow, after Mao's death, all the communists in the Communist Party just "disappeared"?

The right opportunists seem to be getting the upper hand for the past two decades or so, comrade, but it would be superficial to assume that they have succeeded in fully taking over the country, let alone the Party.

If there are "obstacles" to the full development of the free market, and if these obstacles are created by the Party itself, then it is clear that there is some sort of internal struggle within the Party.

That, combined with the increasing instances of working-class direct action, which a comrade mentioned above, shows that China is not fully lost to the Divine Free Market...at least not yet.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 30, 2006 05:36 am
But don't you agree that it would be wrong to assume that somehow, after Mao's death, all the communists in the Communist Party just "disappeared"?
I'd say all the communists in China disappeared a lot earlier than that - into Mao's jails and places of execution. After the fall of the CPs across Eastern Europe and the USSR, no communists worthy of the name emerged, in particular no sign of revolutionary internationalism. The apparatchiks succeeded in wiping out the communist political current in those countries, and also the socialist consciousness of the masses. There's little evidence the situation in China is much better in this respect, though we won't fully know until the totalitarian rule of the CCP shatters.

Workers and peasants are resisting the moves towards capitalism, but it's with a very limited kind of consciousness, basically trade union consciousness.


If there are "obstacles" to the full development of the free market, and if these obstacles are created by the Party itself, then it is clear that there is some sort of internal struggle within the Party.

Why yes, there's internal struggle. There's internal struggle inside the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties, too. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything communist about any layer of party bureaucrats, and there's no evidence there is.

I'd say there's two reasons for divisions within the CCP. One, pressure from below, and fear of potentially larger revolt. Two, much of the bureaucracy draws their incomes from state property, and risks losing their jobs in the course of further privatization. In the long run I'd rather count on the first than the second.

Those two factors are operating in Russia too, BTW, where the apparatchiks don't even claim to be communist. They've been following a policy of retaking majority control of all oil projects in Russia - most recently strongarming Shell and other major oil companies into giving up 51% control of a major project on Sakhalin Island. link (http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17652020&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=474112&rfi=6)

Which sounds a lot like what the Chinese government's doing. Ensuring the state will retain 51% control over this bank.

Look ma, no "communist" bureaucrats needed! In Russia or China.

As Shakespeare said "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." And an apparatchik is an apparatchik, and has the same material interests, regardless of whether they falsely claim to be communist.

It's incredibly superficial to assume that there is, or ever has been, any validity to that label.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:13 pm

It has? Been successful, that is.

Seems to me that there are still a lot of protests and strikes going on. And you sometimes hear about cases where the protesters win pretty large street-fights, or where the cops don't even try to dislodge strikers blocking railroad spurs to factories.
The most recent riot which happened in the hometown of Deng Xiaoping, Sichuan province, though violent and massive, was kept "under control" by the media boycott. Few people have ever heard of it.


But I do believe I am seeing the resurgence of radical leftist activities. According to some Maoists, their organization participated in organizing the massive demonstration in Sichuan, which laid waste to a local hospital and trashed police cars.

Still, they have a long way to go. The government keeps a tight control over them even in cyber space. Their organing under complete secrecy.

[RedStarOverChina]

It would be silly to think that the Chinese Bureaucracy would all of a sudden turn leftist and not-so-oppressive. China is a bourgeois state and it's not something that ever gets "people friendly". It is the nature of the bourgeois state to enslave and "pacify" its subjects with whatever means necessary, and no amount of "left turns" within the administration would change that.

However, the new policies do influence the masses in a positive way. they are merely bourgeois reforms, nothing new. And it's about time, too.

[stevec]

The West investing their money in a Chinese bank will constitute the greatest rip-off in history. The controllers of the bank will scram with the cash (just like American bankers do.) It is an interesting twist. Instead of robbing the bank, you use the bank to do the robbing across state lines by luring in the greedy ones, who have similarly robbed others.

The use of money as a commodity is a problem that is thousands of years old, and it sets the stage for all fraud (intellectual and financial.) 2+2 cannot equal 5 forever. Eventually the house of cards implodes.

[Comrade-Z]

The West investing their money in a Chinese bank will constitute the greatest rip-off in history. The controllers of the bank will scram with the cash (just like American bankers do.) It is an interesting twist. Instead of robbing the bank, you use the bank to do the robbing across state lines by luring in the greedy ones, who have similarly robbed others.

Yeah, I've often wondered if China will ever receive enough popular pressure to nationalize all of that foreign investment that they've lured in...that would be the ultimate heist (not that I would be shedding any tears), hehehe.

Anyways, I wonder, if wages rise even a little in China because of reforms, I wonder how that will affect prices of products and profits of the multinational corporations and international capitalism as a whole.

As for these reforms having any real communist content, I agree with Severian's analysis. Indeed, one could interpret this as a development analogous with the U.S.'s "progressive" era. We're seeing a lot of the same things--rooting out corruption, stabilization of farm prices, some insubstantial pro-labor regulations, etc. Nothing that will significantly upset capitalism in China, barring even more vigorous class struggle and pressure from below (although, like I said, I wonder how this might affect the international economic situation...).

Heh, that last line in the article hit the nail right on the head. Calling for a "harmonious society" in a society that still has rulers and subjects is about as far from class struggle and communism as you can get. It's like the exact opposite! What kind of mental gymnastics the Chinese youth must learn in order to accomodate this cognitive dissonance, I can only guess...

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 01, 2007 06:37 pm
Anyways, I wonder, if wages rise even a little in China because of reforms, I wonder how that will affect prices of products and profits of the multinational corporations and international capitalism as a whole.
Employers in China are already experiencing what they call a "labor shortage", and that'll likely slow the growth of the Chinese economy some.


As for these reforms having any real communist content, I agree with Severian's analysis.

Not really, as we'll see.


Indeed, one could interpret this as a development analogous with the U.S.'s "progressive" era. We're seeing a lot of the same things--rooting out corruption, stabilization of farm prices, some insubstantial pro-labor regulations, etc.

Uh, no. The "Progressives" in the U.S. were mostly middle-class reformers. Their reforms didn't necessarily have much to do with placating working people. The earlier Populist movement had a lot more to do with worker and farmer discontent.


Nothing that will significantly upset capitalism in China,

You're operating on the assumption that capitalism's already been restored, (an assumption your guru Redstar got from Maoists who said capitalism was restored as soon as Mao died and his cronies were purged.) In contrast, I'm looking at the economic situation and the class struggle, and concluding that's a battle still underway.


What kind of mental gymnastics the Chinese youth must learn in order to accomodate this cognitive dissonance, I can only guess...

I don't think many people there take official "Marxism" real seriously. Chinese nationalism seems to be the main ideological justification for the regime.

[shadowed by the secret police]

I'm not an expert but I believe China has lost its way. They have millionaires over there the past few years. It want to join the western elite club of capitalist nations. And with capitalism comes its evil twin imperialism. If China gets to be imperialistic like the U.S. or Britain, heaven help us.

[bolshevik butcher]

From waht I have read in recnet years there has been an exploision in class consicousness in China, illegal unions and strikes seem to be becoming more and more common place. I also read that now workers in different work places are increasingly linking up with each other which can only be a good thing. Some of these workers look to China's maoist past and the 'iron rice bowl' when workers had far better conditions, pensions, health and education rights etc.

[Red Tomato]

capitalists look for anything to be afraid of, especially china and russia. well, what i would like would be for china and russia to destroy america, than america wouldnt have to haunt me anymore! lol

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It want to join the western elite club of capitalist nations. And with capitalism comes its evil twin imperialism. If China gets to be imperialistic like the U.S. or Britain, heaven help us.

A scary thought to think that a monster greater than the U.S. might arise in the next few years. How strong will China be, compared to the U.S.? Three, four, five times? Maybe even more?

How much power will China have?


It would be silly to think that the Chinese Bureaucracy would all of a sudden turn leftist and not-so-oppressive. China is a bourgeois state and it's not something that ever gets "people friendly".

Agreed.

A bourgeois state doesn't just "decide" to stop being bourgeois.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:33 pm

A bourgeois state doesn't just "decide" to stop being bourgeois.
A "bourgeois state" does not exist. It is a description of a group of individuals who share certain ideas, it is not any one individual or a "thing." All terms describe ideas, not people. A state cannot change its mind, but the people can, and do, albiet slowly.

Also, the general trend of humanity is that people are stupid when young and wiser when older. (There are some exceptions. Some are wise early and others remain stupid permanently.)

So within any one "group" ideas are always fluctuating. Like a forest, there is continual birth and death of individual trees, but it is always a forest. Change is constant but not apparant.

If you see the world as forests, it is because you think of yourself as a forest. (Insert your favorite stereotype to describe and flatter yourself.) But in reality you are an individual, and so is everyone else.

This is what Orwell was trying to explain in 1984, and how the concept of the individual was dead in people's minds. They saw themselves as part of a groupthink, and defined everything about themselves and others in terms of groupthink. Love or hate. Black or white. It is akin to religious fundamentalism, but it is political fundamentalism instead. Different scripture (das Kapital) different saints (Marx,) but same structure of thinking.

HOW you think is more important than WHAT you think.

[Xiao Banfa]

I'm not sure wher this is from, I got it off crazy socialistparadise.net.


Movie for Warning CCP Officials Hides the CCP's Top Secret

While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) media are loudly shouting the slogan "building a harmonious society in China," the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection on behalf of the Central Committee of the CCP has requested that Chinese officials at or above the county level watch an internal movie entitled "Peace with Sword in Hand: The Historical Lesson from the Collapse of the Soviet Union Communist Party." The movie was planned and organized by Li Shenming (pen name Xiao Li), vice president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Li is viewed as a close friend of Hu Jintao, Chairman of the CCP. After viewing, all participants are asked to join a group discussion and a record of the discussion must be submitted to upper level officials.

This is a significant event for the CCP since many Chinese people have quit the CCP and its related organizations, and also after the failure of the activity "maintaining the advancement of the CCP education movement," which was initiated and led by Hu when he came to power. According to an internal document, the event is aimed to halt "the death of the CCP" and "save the CCP from its crisis."

Top Secret Uncovered

Experts in Chinese affairs believe that since Li Shenming is Hu's favorite reporter, Li's opinion is a strong signal that should not to be ignored; the importance of the movie is the same as the speech made by the CCP's military general Zhu Chenghu last year. The movie itself reflects that the internal crisis assessed by the CCP is quite grave. The captions in the movie illustrate the CCP's strategies to deal with the internal crisis, which are required to be studied by members of the CCP.

The propaganda tones internally and externally are quite opposite. Externally, the CCP emphasizes "harmony," "prosperity" and "a rising China," while internally it emphasizes "Think of the danger," "Dying Party," and "Lesson from the Soviet Union." This phenomenon indicates that the actual situation in China is not harmonious as reported by Chinese media or the overseas media directly or indirectly controlled by the CCP.

The movie has eight episodes including "The Historical Path Of The Communist Party Of The Soviet Union's (CPSU) Prosperity And Decline," "The Basic Theory And Guiding Principles Of The CPSU," "CPSU's Ideology," "CPSU's Spirit," "CPSU's Privileged Stratum," "CPSU's Organizational Principles," "CPSU's Leadership" and "CPSU's Fighting Back Strategies Toward The Westernization And Split [Of The USSR]."

Regret for Discarding Stalin

The movie's first episode review the power politics of the CPSU, and acknowledges the great achievement of the theory of dictatorship of the proletariat, and specially praised the dictator Stalin, but regrets that Stalin was eventually discarded by the CPSU.

The movie concludes that the reason for the CPSU's loss of power after 74 years was due to the CPSU itself, and claimed that the lost control of ideology resulted in the prevailing capitalist liberalization, which changed the opinion of their carefully educated elites. These elites along with some institutional and economy management officials, some gray economic powers as well as crime forces became gravediggers for the CPSU.

The movie also acknowledged that the inter-party atmosphere of the CPSU was completely ruined through, for example, mutual flattery, embezzling and bribing, privileged rights, exploiting officials, seeking the personal gains, etc.

Movie Claims Withdrawal from CPSU Paralyzed the Party

The movie claims that withdrawal of memberships nearly paralyzed the Party. Within two years, from January 1989 to January 1991, more than 2.9 million members had publicly announced their withdrawal and the majority of members that did not resign had lost their confidence in the Party as well.

The Ural Auto manufacturer, the largest in Soviet Union, had more than 9,000 Communist members in the year 1989, but only 1,600 people still kept their membership by January 1991. Among these more than 300 members did not pay their Party dues. In Briansk region, there were 6,000 members in the year 1986, and 750 in the year 1989, but only 4 left in the year 1991. One-fifth of the Party organizations in factories and half of the Party mini-branches had been dismissed or stopped their routine activities.

Analysts suggest that, given the captions of the movie and the discussion after watching the movie, the CCP is extremely panicked. The perceived crisis has forced the CCP to find a way to survive, asking all its members to "consider dangers while living in peace" to prevent them from losing their privileged status.

Forced Viewing as a Warning

Just prior to the 17th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences published the "Yellow Paper of International Socialism." Li Shenming personally wrote the preface for the yellow paper entitled "Perspectives of Socialism in the 21st Century." The article claimed that "China, with one-fifth of the world's population, has made great achievements in the past by adhering to socialism, the open door policy and the economic reform." "The International socialism movement is coming out of the valley and moving gradually towards revival." Li also predicted that USA-led global capitalism would finally be replaced by CCP-led global socialism.

CCP's Top Secret Uncovered

Experts in China affairs suggest that the global strategy of the higher echelon of the CCP hidden in the movie should be a matter of concern.

Through careful review, the captions for the movie disclose the top secret agenda of the CCP: the ultimate goal is to "liberate the entire human race." The CCP has stated repeatedly that in order to achieve "global socialism" and "control the world," the only means is to resort to "military power."

One very important sentence in a caption is "Just as Mao Zedong said, since then the CPSU has discarded Stalin, the knife." Then the movie flashes a sign "Peace with Sword in Hand" to warn CCP officials through silent display of Mao's ultimate violence theory—the Theory of Knife.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:33 pm

It want to join the western elite club of capitalist nations. And with capitalism comes its evil twin imperialism. If China gets to be imperialistic like the U.S. or Britain, heaven help us.

A scary thought to think that a monster greater than the U.S. might arise in the next few years. How strong will China be, compared to the U.S.? Three, four, five times? Maybe even more?
The next few years? Excuse me, but even if current rates of growth continue unchanged - a big assumption - it'll take more than a few years for China's GDP to merely equal the U.S. GDP. Until 2020 by some calculations. (http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/12/when-will-chinas-gdp-overtake-us.html) Obviously it would take a lot longer for it to become "Three, four, five times" bigger.

And that equal GDP has to feed a lot more people, and a lower percentage is spent on the military by most estimates.

And it's pretty improbable that current growth rates can continue, for a lot of reasons. Basically its easier to have high growth rates starting from a lower level, and going through the initial industrial revolution.

Since the beginning of the modern imperialist system (in Lenin's sense) at the beginning of the 20th century, none of the colonial or semicolonial countries have fully joined the advanced capitalist countries. The reasons that have kept them back - the limited space in the world market - still apply, and apply to China as well.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:29 am
The reasons that have kept them back - the limited space in the world market - still apply, and apply to China as well.
It seems unlikely that space is an issue. Consumption doesn't have limits.

Could you explain this (Lenin's claim) better for me?

[Severian]

Originally posted by stevec+January 03, 2007 06:55 pm--> (stevec @ January 03, 2007 06:55 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:29 am
The reasons that have kept them back - the limited space in the world market - still apply, and apply to China as well.
It seems unlikely that space is an issue. Consumption doesn't have limits. [/b]
Of course it does. You can't spend money you don't have, for starters. Capitalism is all about competition for market share, and it obviously can be hard for new competitors to break in and supplant old ones.


Could you explain this (Lenin's claim) better for me?

Well, you could read his booklet called Imperialism.

But I don't think it's Lenin's claim - I don't think he predicted it, especially.

It's more of an observation that since the beginning of the 20th century - which Lenin identified as the beginning of a new, more monopolistic period in the development of capitalism - no new country has become advanced capitalist. The imperialist powers of North America, Western Europe and Japan were already defined then.