China And India =booming?

[Coggeh]

Attending a recent party branch meeting a comrade arrived back from an international congress of the C.W.I in Belgium ,in which he talked about the extensive faults in the Indian and Chinese Economies like for instance the fact that their is strike on average in China every 5mins.The new mininum wage laws talked about by entuasiasts are:The highest is ¥25.80 per month or ¥4.66 (~US$0.60 an hour) an hour (in Guangzhou city). The lowest is ¥20.70 per month or ¥0.69 (~US$0.25) an hour.
Obviously not alot of progression has been made in terms of workers rights their , also Wal-mart are planning on opening their business in India , a move which is set to put millions of retailers out of work and deepen them further into poverty. All this talk from business "experts" here in Ireland really sickens me Just stupid how they can't look past the thin ice surface

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3554.asp

[Vargha Poralli]

I don't know about China but India is definitely BOOMing for about 1,50,000 rich capitalists but definitely NOT for more than 1 billion WORKERS AND PEASANTS.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

By 2050 china is expected to be the richest economy with India in second.

[Phalanx]

I think even by 2026 China is supposed to have greater purchasing power than the USA, with India in third.

[Cheung Mo]

Electorally, the situation is hopeless in India:

The mainstream right consists of Hindutva fascists and ultra-capitalists while the mainstream "left" consists of the pro-Washington (at least nowadays) Indian National Congress (which has a history of denouncing Hindutva with one hand while imposing some of its ideals on India) and a bunch of sell-outs claiming to be Marxists.

[Brownfist]

Today "India Shining" is demonstrative of an ever wealthier middle and upper-class, which constitutes approximately any where from 5-10% of the population. This has been due to the increased financialization of capital (which is largely foreign investments), and increases in industrial production primarily for foreign consumption. However, for the 90% of the population the situation in India has gotten worse. The cost of living has tripled, whereas the increase in wages has been completely disproportionate. Furthermore, there has been an increased alienation of peasants from their land, and an increased rate of rural-to-urban flight. This has further ensured that the wages of workers in the industrial sector remain low. This has been accompanied with the development of large urban working-class, including unemployed and underemployed, slums which have not got the basic amenities like sewage systems etc.

I think the electoral situation is very different. We do not see the same kinds of low voter turnout that can be seen in America because people in India do seem invested in voting. Not because they believe that anything will change, but because that is some kind of political agency. However, this has been accompanied with strong peasant, worker, feminist, dalit formations which have differing levels of militancy. Electorally, there is very little national politics anymore, rather that has been substituted with a regionalized politics. Thus, we have seen the rise of regional and identity-based parties.

The communist movement in India is very large, but also very uneven. The largest parties are the CPI and CPI(M) which follow revisionist politics. But then there are middling parties like SUCI and AIFB which are also able to garner votes, and tend to be a little bit more radical. Then there is the militarized communist parties who do not, or partially do, engage in electoral politics. These parties all though having branches around the country are largely located in Bihar, Jharkand, and Andhra Pradesh.

[BreadBros]

I know less about India than China, but I suspect the situation is similar in both countries. They are both essentially undergoing a transition to modern capitalist production.

When it comes to discussion about the progress in these countries there are a few important things to remember. First and foremost the economic progress does not signify any sort of dissapearance of the gap between rich and poor. That gap still exists and is getting wider. The difference is that with more things being produced for cheaper the average person's possession of material goods and what not has likely increased. To continue with the previous point the property relations of the country aren't really being destroyed as much as morphing. I.e. the creation of extensive bourgeois and proletarian classes (both referenced above in terms of the booming upper middle class and the huge migration to urban centers) as a replacement for the more traditional agrarian-centric one.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I think there is no doubt that the "boom" in China and India benefits mainly the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie.

But having said that, we must keep in mind that the fundamental structure of these economies, at least for India, will be very different from that of the imperialist countries.

India and China are not net exporters of finance capital. In fact, the more they industrialize, the more imperialism exploits them. At the same time, however, they also gain the economic strength necessary to challenge the imperialist bloc.

I guess this whole process merely emphasizes the growing contradictions in the global capitalist order.

[Brownfist]

BreadBros I disagree with your statement:



To continue with the previous point the property relations of the country aren't really being destroyed as much as morphing. I.e. the creation of extensive bourgeois and proletarian classes (both referenced above in terms of the booming upper middle class and the huge migration to urban centers) as a replacement for the more traditional agrarian-centric one.

In India the property relations are being broken. The property relations are fundamentally being broken as agrarian communities are being alienated from their lands and being forced into coming to the urban centers, whilst the majority of the family of the said worker remains in the village (and receives monies that are earned in the urban centers). This is resulting fundamental changes in societal and property relations. Whereas, earlier small farmers and peasants would earn from smalls lots of land, they are increasingly selling or being forced off their properties (and even when they are selling it is not because they necessarily want to, but because of the flawed and unfair choices that provided by capitalism). I think that the problem with this argument that the property relations are "morphing" is that it hides the violence and suffering that is endured by those who are having to leave their families behind.

On the side of the petite-bourgeois and bourgeoisie we can say that their property relations have been morphed, into that of a consumer capitalist society. I think that we should not confuse the changes in the social relations between these large socio-economic class formations and how they have experienced the "economic boom".

[peaccenicked]

The boom in China and India has it limits http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/Nussb...ourcing_to.html (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2005/10/outsourcing_to.html) Already we see the beginning of the end.

[Brownfist]

peaccenicked I think that there are definitely limits to this boom, especially due to the imperialist control that the Euro-American countries have over the economy. However, I do not think that the boom is anywhere near the beginning of the end. This is because of the ever increasing financialization of capital that still has the potential to occur in India, and because of the industrial development that India is currently engaging in. To see the boom in India as being solely linked to out-sourcing is actually quite incorrect because although that is inextricably linked to the Indian economy that is not the only sector that is bing developed in India. Thus, other industries are being developed like medical tourism, special economic zones for heavy and chemical industries etc.

[peaccenicked]

Brownfist.
The boom itself is very contradictory.Have a look at this. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0610-04.htm There is certain amount of independent growth of industry and decolonialisation. The IMF now borrowing from India puts in the financial fantasy land that underpins the global economy. With the dollar droppinghttp://www.endofempire.org/reports.php?page=21. Finance capital can make headway in different regions.
What I am suggesting is that outsourcing is set to begin in India and this is the beginning of general deindustrialistion of a particular economy and even traditional industries can come under attack.

The general tendency to drive wages down is a global disaster bringing even those going through booms to their knees. Each boom has been followed by a bust. With booms like this one you hardly need a bust.

[Brownfist]

Peacenicked,
I have met Arundhati Roy, and I dont find anything contradictory about the article you have sent. Rather, the article is demonstrative of the so-called "brown" versus "green" debate. I do not think that there is going to be a deindustrialization of India. This is where the Indian developmental plan is distinctly different from the Indonesian and Malaysian development plans, in which the Indian government and the nationalist bourgeoisie are heavily invested in industrialization of India. What we see in India is not a deindustrialization, but an increased rate of industrialization, but in a very controlled manner and in specific regions of the country. This national bourgeoisie industrialization is accompanied with a foreign investment led industrialization in numerous parts of the country, especially the so-called "Special Economic Zones". I mean in the context of Indian development we need to recognize that immaterial forms of labour can only provide employment for very low sections of society, and that majority of the people will be employed in the industrial sectors. What has happened in India, is that there has been an increased opening up of the industrial sector to private ownership, and most recently foreign investment.

Furthermore, I think that we need to make the Indian boom-bust distinct from Indian development. The Indian boom that can be seen is especially apparent in the financial circuits of the economy in which the Indian economy is seeing record-levels in the Sensex, real estate pricing etc. However, simultaneously there is a development in India which currently is at a low rate of 7.5% (or thereabouts). Now this development rate is pretty decent for an developing country like India, and this will continue. Even if there is a bust, the rate may drop, but I do not think that we will see negative development rates. I mean even a country like the US has annual development rates of approx. 2-3% The bust-boom cycles which you are referencing tend to impact the fourth circuit of the economy which is finance capital, and till date in India the financialization of capital has not overshadowed the industrial development. I think that there are numerous people who are heavily focusing on the immaterial forms of labour like the IT industry and the financial circuits, but there is a huge industrial sector that is not shrinking but growing.

Another sector in which we are seeing industrial development is the agricultural sector. This of course is resulting in the breaking down of the property relations that was discussed below. In the case of India this means that there is more agricultural output, but land is becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and we are seeing the proliferation of a "green revolution" discourse in that sector. A friend of mine is actually doing a political economic study of the horticultural industry. Thus, we of course come to the big debate in India regarding the modes of production in the country. But that can be discussed at another time.

[peaccenicked]

I think you make a good case based on the empirical evidence. But I think development as such is not permanent thing as such. One can see examples of retardation of development in many parts of the world. The question for today is not so much regional but Global. The world is on a helter skelter, the main player is the US. The dollar though under attack still acts as the universal equivalent.
The booms in China and India are real, and they have developed the productive forces.
I think that the way financial speculation has been deregulated that there will be very fast movements in the global economy. Literally causing chaos everywhere.
This is based not on just the empirical evidence but a look at the overall picture.

The tendency for decline within the world economy is predicated on the law of value.
MM' is replacing M-C-M' on a global scale.

Money is looking for ever more non commodity means for profit, it has its own nature and is now formally unregulated almost everywhere. The rise of economic "tigers" within modes of production with a higher degree of State regulation is a temporary island type phenonomen, as "islands of socialism" have been destroyed by the dominant mode of production ie imperialism. The long term cycle of capitalist decline will pass by no country.
The struggle for higher wages and living conditions will play no small part in this.
The tendency towards war, revolution and counter revolution in the world is at first local and or regional in so-called hotspots but because of the generalised nature of exploitation and class struggle, nothing and noone is safe from the visscitudes of the market.

It is difficult to predict exact details and timescales but the nature of the beast has been diagnosed by many economists with a Marxist bend. The crisis of 'leadership' which was put forward by Trotsky was perhaps too narrow and elitist. It might be better described as the crisis of the subjective factor, any case it,only prolongs the death agony of capitalism.

[Brownfist]

Peaccenicked,
You have made a very complicated argument with which I largely agree (except for of course the Trotsky reference). It is indeed true that due to the deregulation of finance capital around the globe, and the increasing deregulation of capital in India, there will indeed be some kind of economic crisis. I mean there of course would need to be a theoretical study of the relationship between capital and technology but I wonder what kind of technological developments can be innovated to ensure and reproduce even faster modes of currency circulation.

However, I think that the overall analysis that you are arguing is slightly problematic due to one main reason. You assume that due to a financial crisis in American-led economic relations there will be a decline in capital. I disagree. The same could have been said for Europe at the turn of the 20th century, however, what we saw was a shift from an European-led capital market to an American-led market. Thus, the question becomes whether a country like India or China would be able to assume a mantle similar to that of the Americans currently. I believe it is Mao that argued that capitalism is now in strategic decline, and I would need to see the political economic data to actually prove that. But, I do agree that capitalism is in strategic decline, but I do not think that the decline is inextricably linked to the American dollar.

I believe that with the emergence of countries like India and China, we can see an attempt to prolong the death throes of capitalism. However, I think that we should not assume that a decline in capitalism, and a final death in capitalism, will necessarily lead to communism, as that would be an economist explanation. Rather, I do think that there would need to be a concrete struggle with fascist forces over the future. For all we know, we could see a new stage of capitalism that even Lenin or Mao could not have predicted.

[peaccenicked]

Brownfist,
I found would you have to say very interesting. I have been tackling some of the questions that you raise. Perhaps in a different manner. The growth of American imperialism is a sticky question in that I think it diverges from the pattern of history that Marx and Engels established. In that they pointed towards a more Eurocentric course for world history not ruling out revolution elsewhere.
The general feeling even in Lenin's time was of competing Imperialist powers. The present unipolar nature of US power represents an anomaly in world historical development. Not merely by Marxist 'norms' but the unique way the US was able to achieve world hegemony.
This anomaly phenonomen was addressed by Marx in the case of Sparta in Ancient Greece, and more recently by Hillel Tichtin in the case of the Soviet Union which for him was not a coherent mode of production.
The US to me is not anomaly because it is not coherent mode of production but because it is has world dominance, something that also developed out of the rise
of Stalinist dictatorships. Every country in the world was brought into the cold war.

With the old cold war over a new one has risen, directed at the Muslim world and their resources. The world seems to be moving towards the old Leninist norm of inter imperialist rivalary. Behind this cold war against the muslim world is another cold war against rising economies that challenge world hegemony.
Already China is being accused of milking Africa in the US media.
Another part of this anomaly in world history is US military superiority and its nuclear arsenal. The devastation of a new world war runs against the tide of previous revolutions, both the Chinese and the Russian revolutions being results of world war.
It means that the world is moving in a direction unprecedented in terms of global conditions for revolution. The nonaligned nations seem to be getting more daring holding their conference in Cuba was a little slap in the face to US imperialism.
Outside of Latin and South American countries and a few hotspots elswhere the left is almost outside of history managing at the most mass demonstrations which in themselves alone show our present powerlessness.

The whole shifts in balance of power against the US, is as much to do with their willingness to use force and to bully the rest of the world. The UN vote for sanctions against Iran being an indication of the sway of US power.

Many socialists only see ,routine as usual, organise the party against local capitalism, and the politics passes them by, or they come out against war as a matter of being against war in general.
The 'realpolitik' is hardly ever even sought after or grasped.
The fall of a unipolar State is not only important to the rising economies but to the
the international proletariat. The US has acted as the leading force of counter revolution and cultural hegemony.

The fall of US imperialism means the rise of others but this 'levelling out of imperialism', in my opinion, can only open up opportunities and weaken imperialism in general.

The currency issue is being broached as front against the US. It is a way in to reducing US power but military defeat in Iraq does that as well. Russia supplying Iran with air defence missiles does that as well. Everywhere the world is getting more daring apart from close allies of the US.

This is because of the status of the US as a world power is being diminished. This is factor for a rise of the general level of class struggle and augurs well for the future. When the big bully looks weak let us act, let us think it out too.
In the context of booms in China and India these things must be welcomed but treated with caution as things in themselves as they have all the inbuilt obsolesence of Imperialism in decline.

[Brownfist]

Peaccenicked,
Yes, currently at this juncture of history there is a definite anomaly in which American imperialism is experiencing a seemingly uni-polar world. However, we are not seeing the unfettered capitalist development that is supposed by Hardt and Negri in "Empire". Rather, capital is experiencing numerous sites of contestation including Iraq. I mean Hardt and Negri seem to argue that we have now reached the stage in which nation-states are withering away or are subservient due to globalization, thus what we will experience is a contradiction between a global bourgeoisie and the multitude (i.e. the global proletariat). However, I do not share their vision of empire.

I mean it is undeniable that we currently do exist in an uni-polar world. However, I do think that the fact that American imperialism is actually collapsing will allow, as you have said, for the emergence of other imperialist powers. This is because there is no real mobilization, on a global scale, of the proletariat under communist parties. I mean there are some cases in which this is happening, however, this is not a global situation and by no means is their a co-ordinated anti-capitalist movement. Thus, what I do think will occur is that we will see the emergence of more reactionary movements in countries, in order to achieve peace and order, and to ensure the continuity of capitalism, unless we see a sudden development in communist parties around the world.

[peaccenicked]

It does seem that the world revolutionary process is at a low ebb. There are competing Internationals but none widely recognised as dominant. The whole problem of uneven and combined development in the sphere of political consciousness has never been so askew. It might well be that things are mostly out of our hands, that events themselves will drive people towards necessary changes. The world in my view is generaly moving towards the left, events in Iraq have caused a great distrust in the established right. This will be reflected more and more in electoral results and in mass actions in many countries. To me what is happening is that working class confidence is on the rise. In some countries there is little outlet for it but were organisation grows stronger examples of victories will spread.
The problem is that the key areas, have been largely depoliticised single issues tend to prevail over universal interest. The impact of imperialist collapse is still to nurture clear ideological struggles rather than muddled sectarian squabbles,that can pick up the movement rather than hold it back.
The politicalisation of the vast majority in the "advanced countries'' is already around Iraq, the escalation of this war or its retreat is the burning issue that can spark a development of consciousness on the nature of capitalism and ultimately the issue of the State.
So much subjectivity is involved that it is hard to tell when what is lying dormant shall become awake, the mood swing to the left has the potential to become more focussed or even crystalise into a significant force. There some indications that the booms in India and China can give confidence to workers to struggle.
The period of imperialist triumphalism is coming to an end.

[Brownfist]

Peaccenicked,
I like your optimism, however, I guess I do not share it because I think that currently if there was an economic crisis around the world, rather than there being a revolutionary tide to the left, I think that it will occur to the far right. Thus, even if we see the movements in Palestine, Lebannon and Iraq they are all right-wing movements albeit anti-imperialist. In Latin America we see a movement to left social democracy, in Africa there are some left movements around anti-globalization but they have not coalesced around any specific party or ideology, and in Asia there has been a proliferation of communist, especially maoist movements.

I think that the problem of "single interests" is especially a problem in North America where it has taken root as a means and politics of organizing. This of course is a problem because connections to other issues are not developed, under the guise of mass organizing. However, legitimate left-wing mass organizations are not really being developed by any party/formation/group. Thus, all that we do see is the sectarian squabbling that you correctly notice.

The only way there can be politicization of the masses in North America is if North American comrades actually learn from Nepal, India and the rest of the Third World as how to organize the people. However, due to the Eurocentricism of North American comrades this learning is not occurring. And, when I say that they must learn from the Third World I do not mean what the RCP(USA) does in polemically supporting the Nepalese, and then not changing their own practices. The same can be said for the anarchists who look to the Chiapas and do not recognize how they organize, or the Trotskyists who have no clue how Korean or South African workers have been organized.

I think that unless the Euro-American left doesnt get its shit in order we aren't going to see the end of imperialist aggression.

[peaccenicked]

Brownfist,
I am not that optimistic. All I am noticing(surveying opinion polls) is a shift from cold war triumphalism to panic in Washington. This alone represents a shift to the left. The matter of how far this swing goes is another question. It is still in the air but it would be a mistake to underestimate the forces of reaction. There is much that is still to be learned by the movement, from other countries experience and even history itself. There seems a need to beyond our present limitations. The Lefts ability to get its act together might not matter, if all it does is hang on to obsolete practices that isolate it from the people in general. The people moving forwards themselves can lead the left forward. The question of confidence does not really apply to the left. It is confident already, perhaps too confident. The real question is how working class confidence will express itself. I think we live in times like Andropov's death. Everything seemed quiet and still. Gorbachev changed that. The panic in the Whitehouse might see a few more Presidents but I cannot see anything that will not make that panic worse. The bottom line is that fears are being overcome and how can they stop that, and the rest of the world will awake to this fundamental shift.