Massive Riot in China

[RedStarOverChina]

According to "Voice of America" there is a massive riot going on in Hunan Province, China, involving 20,000 peasants and unemployed workers. 1,000 policemen are summoned, 9 police cars burnt.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12032007/397/thou...ot-china-0.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12032007/397/thousands-riot-china-0.html)

[Guerrilla22]

Apparently the farm workers were laid off, looks pretty wild.

[RNK]

So who thinks the time is ripe for another people's revolution in China?

*raises hand*

[BreadBros]

From what I understand there is MASSIVE discontent among the Chinese proletariat. The only legal union is the government-sponsored one which acts as a representative of the state. I don't have the sources to point to but I've at various times heard that there are apparently several wildcat strikes among Chinese workers on a nearly daily basis over the issues of wages, working conditions, jobs, etc.

From the linked-to article:

A widening gap between rich and poor, corruption and official abuses of power have fuelled a growing number of demonstrations and riots around China, often sparked by seemingly minor issues.

The government has said the number of "mass incidents" in the country - a term that includes protests, petitions and demonstrations - was about 23,000 last year.

Efforts to reduce inequality and sources of discontent have been a theme of government efforts to improve the livelihoods of its 750 million farmers.

[RedStarOverChina]

The protest was sparked by a hike in transportation costs---But the reason behind is far deeper.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:32 pm
So who thinks the time is ripe for another people's revolution in China?

*raises hand*
Thinking about this sparked a question in my mind. Despite the fact that China is now a defacto fully capitalist country, the state still does quite a bit to teach it's students that it represents Mao-Zedong-thought. Considering that it appears that the Chinese proletariat identifies the Chinese state as one if it's enemies/antagonists, don't you think they would automatically identify Maoism (and likely Marxism as a whole) with the state and with reaction and therefore steer away from that? In other words, has the Chinese state tainted the name of Marxism so much to the point where a revolution is unlikely?

[RedLenin]

don't you think they would automatically identify Maoism (and likely Marxism as a whole) with the state and with reaction and therefore steer away from that?
No. I think it is pretty obvious to the Chinese people that the system they are living under now is pure capitalism. A lot of the Chinese people still remember what life was like under Mao's regime. Despite my dislike of Mao and Stalinist China, the people of China were tremendously better off back then, with the planned economy. Now the material conditions of capitalism is hitting the Chinese proletariat very hard. Capitalism simply cannot take a firm grip in China, the capitalist system is way too far into its development.

Obviously the only solution in China is for a genuine socialist revolution, not a repeat of the Maoist experience, which led to capitalism in the first place. China needs a proletarian revolution, involving the leadership and revolutionary action of the proletariat, in alliance with the peasantry, to bring about a genuine socialist state. China needs workers control and a democratically planned economy. I believe that the people of China will have to choose between socialism or more brutality and degredation at the hands of capitalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think anyone in China is stupid enough to think that they're living in a Marxist-Leninist society. The government explicitly wants capitalism. It's no secret. Teaching Mao Tse-tung though can only be a good thing for revolution, IMO.

[RNK]

yes, again, you fall into that murky territory, of whether the people of China still like the tenets of communist or has their government ruined it for them... frankly, I don't think it's nearly as bad as what occured in E. Europe. I think there is still hope. I wish there was some way to help, but I think I'd stick out a little too much if I actually went there and tried to, y'know, spark another revolutionary movement...

Also, China today has a much more efficient industrialization. The fact that they make like 90% of the world's commodities is testiment to that.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:37 pm
The only legal union is the government-sponsored one which acts as a representative of the state.
This smacks of fascism, methinks.

[Urban Rubble]

The problem with the modern Chinese state is that they've clung to the appearance of Socialism for far too long. They've preached Socialist morality and worker solidarity to the point where *gasp* the Chinese people actually believe it! When you indoctrinate your workers in Marixst thought, then proceed to run a Capitalist economy you've created a pretty fucking volatile situation.

[Janus]

Yongzhou is a major agricultural productions center for Hunan and is currently developing at a rapid pace by opening itself to investment particularly foreign investment. As for increasing transportation costs, it certainly seems possible though Yongzhou has always had extremely convenient and cheap transportation since it's somewhat of a junction point. But like RSOC said, there are much deeper issues behind this; wherever investment/development moves in, the average farmers and workers are always left behind if not directly expropriated of their land.

[Janus]

Apparently the farm workers were laid off, looks pretty wild.
In China, it's mainly the industrial workers who face lay-offs particularly those in the NE industrial sector. Farmers (most of whom are independent) are more likely to be kicked off their land by developers and thus must seek work in the cities.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This reminds me of Tianamen Square, in the west it is always used as an event to prove that communism is evil or whatever, yet few people actually realize that it was the maoist workers and those who thought neoliberalism went to far that were a driving force in the protest.

This seems sort of similiar. It seems anti-capitalist, but not maoist or anarchist or anything like that, just spontaneous.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you're mistaken, UR. I'm pretty sure Chinese students are taught what communism and socialism are. From which there is no possible way to deduce that the country in which they're living qualifies as either. I've read articles citing that in China it's widely recognized and explicit that the current state is capitalist and the mainstream political Chinese discourse tends to lean towards that being a good thing and maintaining capitalism. Of course, that's just what the mainstream media says and the effective repression of anti-capitalist dissent is a defining factor of capitalism anyways.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:40 pm
This reminds me of Tianamen Square, in the west it is always used as an event to prove that communism is evil or whatever, yet few people actually realize that it was the maoist workers and those who thought neoliberalism went to far that were a driving force in the protest.

I can pretty much guareenty you this is in someways related to the Maoists. Either them or the Trots, but most likely Maoists of course.

I know a Maoist organization that told they they are pretty much responsible for most of the large protests that's happening rencently in China, both in the cities and in the countryside.

They are very secretive, of course.

[Radek]

According to a Chinese friend I have talked to on the issue, the CPC claim that capitalism is a temporary measure in order to raise productivity to the level where communism becomes possible. If this is reflective of their wider teachings (and from what I have read it does seem to be), then it suggests that the CPC are taking a stagist appoach to communism.

This approach looks to have found substantial support amongst the more economically successful in capitalist China. Of course, the extent to which the Chinese proletariat and peasantry buy into it is another matter altogether.

[Janus]

then it suggests that the CPC are taking a stagist appoach to communism.
They're no longer focused on achieving communism, it's simply part of the rhetorical of the CCP which needs to maintain its legitimacy.

[Red Tung]

According to a Chinese friend I have talked to on the issue, the CPC claim that capitalism is a temporary measure in order to raise productivity to the level where communism becomes possible. If this is reflective of their wider teachings (and from what I have read it does seem to be), then it suggests that the CPC are taking a stagist appoach to communism.

Which is the only approach that makes sense according to Marxist historical materialism. The other approach would be to return to rural, tribal Communism. I'm not making any value judgement on either approach as some real world primitive tribalists seem to be quite happy with their society. But, me being the urban, technophile type would be utterly miserable in such a setting.


This approach looks to have found substantial support amongst the more economically successful in capitalist China. Of course, the extent to which the Chinese proletariat and peasantry buy into it is another matter altogether.

How else would you hope the peasantry to react? In Capitalism, all that matters is being able to trade, swindle, extort or steal (it's not a crime unless you're caught) anything that gains you more money relative to the other guy, so that you get to be in the position of hiring rather than be in the position of the hired.

Whether or not the actual enterprise produces genuine social or material benefits is irrelevant. Money that is freed to make investment decisions based solely on market demand makes no value judgements and is virtually impossible to managed toward socially beneficial ends without producing some sort of corruption given anybody clever and ruthless enough to take advantage of the dependency relationshipd that is inevitably results from the inequality of wealth.

But, the peasanty only knowing one thing which is to farm the land for agricultural goods would be in a disadvantage in a society in which people can trade their know-how in science and engineering to produce mechanized means of agricultural production like farm tractors. Given that their main market tradable skill of developing food from manual labour is made obsolete and that nobody is willing to trade them money to get trained and educated in other areas of work since they have nothing worthwhile to trade for money to begin with, rioting would seem perfectly reasonable.

But another good question is whether or not they would be willing to be trained to be something else other than peasants or is it that they are peasants as something they culturally identify themselves as and not simply an occupation as should be the more practical approach to means of livelihood. Peasants are quite conservative socially as well as culturally you know.



then it suggests that the CPC are taking a stagist appoach to communism.
They're no longer focused on achieving communism, it's simply part of the rhetorical of the CCP which needs to maintain its legitimacy.

And how do you propose a socially and culturally static peasant society adopt the ways of productivity innovation without first going through urbanization and industrialization that is made possible with Capitalism, backyard iron furnaces as proposed by Mao?

The intellectually and technically competent was looked down upon and attacked by these backward country types as being "petty bourgeois mandarins" back in the cultural revolution. Not that there weren't arrogant, elitist intellectuals, but that's not the point. How do you propose engineers, teachers and doctors work without the equipment that comes from a society that is not rural, but is industrially developed?

Of course, going back toward a type of rural communal society is entirely possible. Just don't complain when harvests fail, herbal remedies don't work and the only source of entertainment if you're lucky enough to have enough spare time not tending the crops is to play with ants in the garden.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:40 am
This reminds me of Tianamen Square, in the west it is always used as an event to prove that communism is evil or whatever, yet few people actually realize that it was the maoist workers and those who thought neoliberalism went to far that were a driving force in the protest.

This seems sort of similiar. It seems anti-capitalist, but not maoist or anarchist or anything like that, just spontaneous.
George Bush established closer economic ties with Beijing shortly after the massacre. I wonder why that could have been? :D

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:52 am

then it suggests that the CPC are taking a stagist appoach to communism.
They're no longer focused on achieving communism, it's simply part of the rhetorical of the CCP which needs to maintain its legitimacy.
4 legs good, 2 legs better. That's the "left" bonapartist way.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:05 pm
According to "Voice of America" there is a massive riot going on in Hunan Province, China, involving 20,000 peasants and unemployed workers. 1,000 policemen are summoned, 9 police cars burnt.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12032007/397/thou...ot-china-0.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12032007/397/thousands-riot-china-0.html)
off topic but your avatar rules ! :ph34r:



Hmmm..

Who Vs Who + why ?

Students vs Red coloured jet liberal state
workers vs red coloured jet liberal state

BTW wtf look at that picture in the article :P ! are those policemen stormtroopers or sumething ? they look very sience fiction to me :P

[RedStarOverChina]

OK, here's an update:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6453035.stm


He says it appears the protests began after a local firm took over the town's bus routes and doubled the fares.

More privatization, anyone?

[Janus]

And how do you propose a socially and culturally static peasant society adopt the ways of productivity innovation without first going through urbanization and industrialization that is made possible with Capitalism, backyard iron furnaces as proposed by Mao?
No, China needs to industrialize and develop but it doesn't mean that the CCP has a long-term goal for advancing China into communism.


The intellectually and technically competent was looked down upon and attacked by these backward country types as being "petty bourgeois mandarins" back in the cultural revolution. Not that there weren't arrogant, elitist intellectuals, but that's not the point. How do you propose engineers, teachers and doctors work without the equipment that comes from a society that is not rural, but is industrially developed?
What does this have to do with the CCP's goals of achieving communism. Do you actually think that the party is still interested in communism and working in the best interests of the people at this point?
As for the Cultural Revolution, intellectuals were looked down on but science has always been embraced by the CCP though development was certainly disrupted by the tumult and turmoil caused by the Culture Revolution. How else could China have detonated a nuclear bomb in 1964 if it was as backward as you claim.