Which American Communist Party Is Most Prochina?

[jacobin1949]

Which American Communist Party Is Most Prochina?, How do you folks feel about Deng Xiaopeng theory?

To thoose who say China has abandoned Mao Zedong Thought look what the PLA has to say:

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/index.htm


Does anyone know Which American communist party is most proChina?
The Maoists mostly hate china because of Deng. In my opinion its probaly the CPUSA the originial. It was very proMoscow during the Cold War and condemned China during the split but since 1991 theyve been pretty friendly. They even sent a delegation to visit China and the ccp wished them luck is their congress. In addition therye probaly the only CP that doesnt condemn Deng. If anyone knows which other foreigh CPs in India, Africa and L America and around the world are proChina please post.

I don't think you should be liek the other left deviants and condemn Deng Theory outright. Deng theory admits that China is in the primary stage of socialism and that it will be many years before China enters the stage that MArx-Lenin forsaw a communist society being created. In the mean time its best to have a proworkers party oversee the transitions that must take place.

Deng Xiaopeng theory is communsim! Only trotsky deviants think that a capitalist stage of development can be skipped. If you read Marx's works he actually praises the acheivemnts of the bougeios but then goes on to say that their stage of history is over. Deng theory is simply applying MArx's scientific ideals to the concrete conditions of China. China is still in the primary stage of socialism. To dismiss their revolution simply because it doesnt fit dogma puts us in a straightjacket and prevents real results. Deng theory is the legitimate heir to Mao Zedong thought. Deng theory is just Maoism for the 1980s. China is not Germany, it still has to go through the indutrial revolution and Marx never invisioned a communist industrial revolution that Trosky deviation. Anyway the largest CP in America the CPUSA seems to feel that Deng theory is neccesary at least for now. Deng theory has created the most successful socialist stae to date. Not to slight Mao, but then again praising Deng is praising MAo. If you understand what the primary stage of socialism is then theres no denying china is socialist in heart and soul.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/49109.htm
To quote the constituion of the CCP 2002:

China is at the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long period of time. This is a historical stage which cannot be skipped in socialist modernization in China that is backward economically and culturally. It will last for over a hundred years. In socialist construction we must proceed from our specific conditions and take the path to socialism with Chinese characteristics. At the present stage, the principal contradiction in Chinese society is one between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the low level of production. Owing to both domestic circumstances and foreign influences, class struggle will continue to exist within a certain scope for a long time and may possibly grow acute under certain conditions, but it is no longer the principal contradiction. In building socialism, our basic task is to further release and develop the productive forces and achieve socialist modernization step by step by carrying out reform in those aspects and links of the production relations and the superstructure that do not conform to the development of the productive forces. We must uphold and improve the basic economic system, with public ownership playing a dominant role and diverse forms of ownership developing side by side as well as the system of distribution under which distribution according to work is dominant and a variety of modes of distribution coexist, encourage some areas and some people to become rich first, gradually eliminate poverty and achieve common prosperity, and continuously meet the people's ever-growing material and cultural needs on the basis of the growth of production and social wealth. Development is our Party's top priority in governing and rejuvenating the country. The general starting point and criterion for judging all our work should be how it benefits the development of the productive forces in our socialist society, adds to the overall strength of our socialist country and improves the people's living standards. The beginning of the new century marks China's entry into the new stage of development of building a well-off society in an all-round way and accelerating socialist modernization. The strategic objectives of economic and social development at the new stage in the new century are to consolidate and develop the well-off standard of living initially attained, bring China into a well-off society of a higher level to the benefit of well over one billion people by the time of the Party's centenary and bring the per capita GDP up to the level of moderately developed countries and realize modernization in the main by the time of the centenary of the People's Republic of China.

theres a difference between means and ends. Theres a difference between being a socialist but aiding the transition from feudalism to democratic capitalism with the ultimate goal of socialism and having views that are closer to capitalism. If Deng's not a real communist is Mao? And if Maos not then how is Lenin a real communist? Deng was a communist back in the 1920s, he worked in the USSR, was on the long march and gave his blood and sweat for the revolution. Hes as much a communist as Mao was. Only Trotsky says we can move directly from Feudalism to Socialism, its called Permanent Revolution and had it been adapted in 1917 communism would just be a blurb in the textbooks after Saint-Simon. Marx or Lenin would never dream of it. If seems no matter where on the poltiical spectrum you are China bashing is an easy riskfree way to score points.

[RNK]

Okay... so all of the conservative property laws, growing private ownership of companies and business, the steadily-increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the increasing amount of millionaires and billionaires in China... these are.. steps towards socialism?

How can you be so sure that this isn't simply a "cover story"? How can you be sure that China will infact, at some point, renounce capitalism, rather than continue on this path indefinately?

[manic expression]

At this point, I'm pretty sure no one is following the Beijing line. The RCP is by far the most influential and largest Maoist party, and it is certainly not close to following the Beijing line.

I would think there are other organizations that support PRC in the US, like lobbies and other interest groups.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

China has gone backwards. It didn't "skip" a step. The KMT rule was bourgious rule. Besides, Marx, Lenin, and Mao never claimed that, what they said is that capitalism will increase the number of industrial proletariat. They said that a bougiousie republic is far better then fuedalism, however, that the proletariat should not stop fighting for socialism no matter the circumstances. France was a fuedal empire type government with an emporer as its head of state during the time of the Paris Commune, yet Marx and Engels immediatly called it a prime example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

China suffered a counter-revolution in 1976. Just ask Nike and Wal-Mart, they'll explain the rest. Also ask the Gang of Five while you're at it and find out why the people's communes were abolished.

[RNK]

Well he's probably right about the "moderate" CPUSA and others. They aren't exactly the epitomy of revolutionary. I'm sure many of them are atleast supportive of the Chinese if not openly friendly.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I've heard that one of the FRSO parties supports Deng. The CPUSA thinks Vietnam is socialist so I bet they think the same of China.

[sexyguy]

For fuck sake, will you start concentrating on the capitalist ‘overproduction’ crisis and its affects on the spontaneous and conscious struggle to DEFEAT imperialism everywhere.

[Janus]

Which American Communist Party Is Most Prochina?
Both the CPUSA and the Worker's World Party are pro-PRC. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by China)


How do you folks feel about Deng Xiaopeng theory?
Latent capitalism in disguise.

[Prairie Fire]

Which American Communist Party Is Most Prochina?

By Pro-China, do you mean modern day China, or the PRC under Mao?

RCP-USA and MIM both uphold Mao Tse-Tung thought in the USA. I can't think of any current American communist organization that supports China in it's present state.


How do you folks feel about Deng Xiaopeng theory?

The same way I feel about Perestroika; Not a fan.


How can you be so sure that this isn't simply a "cover story"? How can you be sure that China will infact, at some point, renounce capitalism, rather than continue on this path indefinately?

Yeah, to be honest, it is a little surreal. Online, you can still look at the webpage of the Chinese communist party, and they are saying "Uphold Mao Tse Tung thought"
When most forms ofcollective ownership of land and the means of production are being swept away. Vietnam is very similar, invoking the name of Uncle Ho, while their nation is host to many sweatshops. Someday I'd like to see Mao in his tomb, just to see if he turns over in his grave.

[jacobin1949]

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/index.htm

as the great ideal of Mao, Deng Xiaoping and their comrades-in-arms to realize China's modernization, complete reunification of the motherland, and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, Hu said.

　　Hu made these remarks in a keynote speech Friday at a CPC Central Committee workshop in commemoration of the 110th anniversary of Mao's birth. Mao is regarded as a great Marxist, and the founder of the CPC, the Chinese People's Liberation Army and the People's Republic of China.

　　Other top CPC officials attending the gathering included Wu Bangguo, Wen Jiabao, Jia Qinglin, Huang Ju, Wu Guanzheng, Li Changchun, and Luo Gan. Zeng Qinghong presided at the meeting.

　　In his address, Hu recalled Mao's achievements, and summarized the outstanding contributions made to the revolution and the development of China by the Chinese communists with Mao as their top representative, who have developed Mao Zedong Thought, namely,Marxism with Chinese characteristics.

　　Hu pledged to continue taking the socialist road with Chinese characteristics, which was created by Deng Xiaoping, the core of the second-generation central leadership, and continued by Jiang Zemin, the core of the third-generation central leadership.

　　He said that Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of "Three Represents" embody the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. They have come down in one line, and must always be adhered to by the Party, he stressed.

　　Hu called for adhering to the principles of ideological emancipation, seeking truth from facts and keeping pace with the times.

　　In the new century and the new period, the tasks for the Party and the Chinese people are to tightly grasp and make full use of the important strategic opportunities, and concentrate all powers to build an overall well-off society that will benefit the whole Chinese people.

　　In his speech, Hu reminded the audience of China's top issues, including the development of a socialist market economy, implementation of political reforms, the reunification of the motherland, and the country's peace-loving and self-reliant foreign policy.

　　At the end of his speech, Hu said, "China is a great country with a civilization of several thousand years. The Chinese people are a great people who have created a splendid civilization, and the Chinese nation is a great nation with the spirit of constantly striving to become stronger and stronger. If we advance along the broad road opened up by Marxist truth constantly, we are sure to overcome all kinds of difficulties, risks and challenges, and to reach the goal of socialist modernization in triumph."

　　Before the workshop, Hu and other top officials paid tribute at the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall in Tiananmen Square, in central Beijing, where they each bowed three times to a statue of Mao.

Copyright © 2003 PLA Daily. All right reserved.

Related link: http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/index.htm

[Ezekiel]

About a week ago I checked their (PRC) english language publications catalogue. They don't sell any Mao any more, just anti-Mao books (one that was proven to be a fake - Red Azalea) and even the collected works of Deng for only a dollar.

But to answer the question: the CPUSA has no principles, so they have occasionally voiced support. WWP considers it 'flawed socialism.' There are some individuals, mostly 15 year olds who don't know any better that support China, but no one really is a fan anymore.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:11 am

Which American Communist Party Is Most Prochina?
Both the CPUSA and the Worker's World Party are pro-PRC. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by China)


How do you folks feel about Deng Xiaopeng theory?
Latent capitalism in disguise.
really??? Worker's World upholds it? I'm suprised. I guess that was a major reason for the Party for Socialism and Liberation being formed off of the split

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No it wasn't, at all. The PSL supports China too, and considers it socialist.

The PSL left WWP over the question of running a candidate for president.

And I have no clue why you're suprised. The WWP's line has been "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" all the way back to Sam Marcy, leading them to support Saddam (after the U.S. gave up on him), Milosevic, the reactionary sections of teh Iraqi "resistance," and a host of other similar characters.

They have also proven themselves unable to identify workers' control of the means of production; thus, their view of DPRK, China, Viet Nam, Laos as "socialist."


I can't think of any current American communist organization that supports China in it's present state.

WWP, CPUSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!), and a few very small sects.

Many Trots defend China as a "deformed workers' state."

[Karl Marx's Camel]

China suffered a counter-revolution in 1976.

A struggle by a few men in a government?

I wouldn't exactly call that a "counter-revolution".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by NWOG+March 25, 2007 02:44 pm--> (NWOG @ March 25, 2007 02:44 pm)
China suffered a counter-revolution in 1976.

A struggle by a few men in a government?

I wouldn't exactly call that a "counter-revolution". [/b]
also known as a revisionist coup



CDL
No it wasn't, at all. The PSL supports China too, and considers it socialist.

The PSL left WWP over the question of running a candidate for president.

Oh well this is what wikipedia says so I just assumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Soc..._and_Liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation)

The PSL supports the government of Cuba, and while a critic of the current Chinese government, it views the Chinese Revolution and Cultural Revolution favorably.


And I have no clue why you're suprised. The WWP's line has been "the enemy of my enemy is my friend

China is hardly America's enemy

[jacobin1949]

From the research I've done the CPUSA seems to have the best relations with Chian by far. However they just recognize the CPC as a legitimate communist party the FRSO on the other hand goes as far as to say that China is a worker's state ruled by and for workers.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2006/01/mayday2006.htm

"In the socialist countries where the working people rule society - Cuba, China, Vietnam, Democratic Korea and Laos, May Day, or International Workers Day, is a national holiday. It is celebrated with huge rallies of millions. Leaders make speeches opposing war and imperialism, while praising the gains of the laboring classes who are furthering the cause of socialism."

My general conclusion is that FRSO is best for China, but the CPUSA is a clsoe second. Of course even certain elements of the Republican party who downplay the China-threat and support free trade are more Pro-china than many so called-Maoists.


http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/792/1/123/

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/10249/1/350/

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/10232/1/349/

http://english.people.com.cn/200203/05/eng...305_91379.shtml (http://english.people.com.cn/200203/05/eng20020305_91379.shtml)

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/899/1/68/




China 2002: Building socialism with Chinese characteristics

Google
Search WWW Search pww.org
Archive Oct. 2001 - 2007 editions 2002 Editions Mar 30, 2002


Earlier this month, a Communist Party USA delegation – National Chairman Sam Webb, Vice Chairman Scott Marshall, African American Equality Commission Chairwoman Debbie Bell and International Secretary Marilyn Bechtel – visited China for a week on invitation of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The group was the first official party delegation since long-time National Chairman Gus Hall visited China with a delegation in 1988.

In studying China today, it is important to recall where the great-great grandparents of today’s Chinese people were a century and a half ago. Together with many Chinese visitors, we viewed that story in well-designed museums in each city we visited – Beijing and the southeastern cities of Shanghai, Suzhou and Jiaxing.

The story begins with the starved, miserable, disease-ridden existence of most Chinese in the mid-19th century, as a corrupt and crumbling empire gave way before European colonial powers who would “oversee” China’s economy, steal its riches and distort its social development. The saga continues through the many sharp struggles that led to the 1949 revolution and the enormous effort that continues today, to bring a vast, impoverished developing country into the modern world

and to begin the building of socialism.

In even an exceptionally well-planned whirlwind tour, following an itinerary we requested because it let us glimpse the fast-developing southeastern area that is open to foreign investment – we could only scratch the surface. We came away realizing that before any firm conclusions can be drawn, much further study is needed of the way in which the Communist Party of China is leading the building of the New China in the world’s largest socialist country; Of how party, government and people are working to solve the very difficult, long-term problems of rural-urban and regional economic disparities, massive reorganization of major industries and participation in a capitalist-dominated global economy. Many questions remain, and time and further experiences will tell if the policies now being pursued in a very thoughtful manner will succeed.

The CPC believes that China is in the primary stages of building socialism. When the Communist Party won state power in 1949, China had been ravaged by civil war and invasion. The early years after 1949 were marked both by periods of substantial economic and social progress, and by costly mistakes. During the “cultural revolution,” from 1966-1976, continuous political upheavals dealt a grievous setback to economic and social development.

The policies of reform and opening to the outside world that underlie China’s development today began in 1978, with the renewed leadership role of Deng Xiaoping. In practice, this means a thorough restructuring of the state owned sector aimed at bringing these industries up to world standards, and a planned opening of the economy to domestic and foreign private investment.

The CPC maintains that public ownership must remain primary. In 1997, for example, over 75 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) came from the state-owned sector. Here, the future trend will be important.

In the cities we visited, construction, both commercial and residential, is booming. Architecture is attractive – often elegant – and strikingly varied. This construction boom could serve as a metaphor for the energy and enthusiasm that is apparent among people on the street as well as among the Communist Party, academic, enterprise and government leaders with whom we met.

Among the issues on our minds was the effect of opening China’s economy to transnational capital, and in particular China’s newly acquired membership in the World Trade Organization. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping asserted that opening up to private domestic and foreign capital was necessary to jump-start a developing economy. He emphasized that communism does not mean shared poverty, and stated that developing certain areas and industries was necessary to speed the development of the socialist economy as a whole.

We explored the issue at the Development Research Center of the State Council – the government’s top policy think tank. Director Wang Menkui emphasized the necessity for China to enter the global market in depth by trying to increase the power of developing countries and to influence policy in the World Trade Organization.

China faces major challenges because the WTO is controlled by the United States and other developed countries, but Wang and others we talked with believe that China will gain vital economic experience and information from WTO participation.

China is now much more directly affected by the global economy, Wang said. The world economic slowdown has negatively affected China’s exports, though last year China’s growth rate remained above 7 percent while worldwide economic growth stagnated at around 1.6 percent. Chinese agriculture, improvement of which is high on the priority list, will be sharply challenged, especially by U.S. agribusiness.

The impact of foreign investment was most visible in Shanghai, which was opened to international capital in the 1980s. A stroll through a brightly – even gaudily – neon pedestrian mall revealed a profusion of storefronts beckoning the strolling throngs with foreign as well as Chinese goods – electronics, clothing, furniture, appliances, consumer goods of all sorts. Had we wished a change from the Chinese haute cuisine we were served at every meal, we could have found McDonald’s, KFC, Starbucks, Burger King and more.

Another facet of foreign invest-

ment is exemplified by the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) – the newest and most competitive of China’s more than 40 such parks. The city of Suzhou used to be a tourist magnet. Now, industrialized, its GDP is seventh in the country.

The park itself is the only joint venture project between the Chinese government and a foreign government – Singapore. The object is to gain the up-to-date technology, commercial and management experience of Singapore with its booming economic development, while giving the foreign investors an avenue to the vast Chinese market.

We inquired about the level of unionization at SIP – the All China Trade Union Federation had said its goal is to organize all the workers in the private sector as well as the state-owned enterprises. We were informed that over 20 unions function at the industrial park, and more than 75 percent of workers are organized. Under government agreements, joint venture companies must not place any obstacles in the way of workers who want to unionize.

Our hosts seemed sure that developing a mixed economy and encouraging foreign investment is not only necessary for the economy of a vast developing country in the early stages of building socialism, but offers benefits that far outweigh the risks. Naive? Perhaps – but having state power gives them added confidence in their ability to keep the public sector dominant.

The other prong of the economic development approach is the rigorous reorganization of the state-owned enterprises, or SOEs. Though there are many small- and medium-sized SOEs, the industrial heavyweights tend to be in this sector. The one we visited, the giant Bao Steel, appears to be doing a booming business in structural and other forms of steel.

Over the country as a whole, restructuring the SOEs is in full swing, and is resulting in significant unemployment. The official figure is given as 3.6 percent, and it is stated that 90 percent of these receive some level of subsistence allowance.

But the size of the migrant population there – 3 million temporary residents beyond the city’s 13 million population, bespeaks a larger problem. Our hosts asserted – we felt accurately – that these serious problems will take considerable time to surmount, but that the restructuring of inefficient SOEs is urgent for China’s future economic progress.

Related long-term problems are the differences in economic development between rural and urban areas, and between western and eastern China. Though agriculture accounts for only 20 percent of today’s GDP, 60 percent of the population lives in rural areas. With little arable land and low productivity, it is necessary to encourage people to move to the city, at the same time agricultural productivity is improved and small and medium industries are encouraged in rural areas. The population movement puts further pressure on the cities.

At the same time, the Chinese take great pride in the reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line by about 10 percent per year. They say the number of rural poor has decreased from 250 million in 1978 to about 30 million today. However, they express great concern that urban per capita incomes rose by 8.5 percent last year, but rural incomes only by 4.2 percent.

Our visit took place at the same time the National People’s Congress – the national legislature – was meeting in Beijing. We noted that a wide range of issues received media coverage. Discussion there was for the most part very open about problems as well as successes. One such issue is corruption, which the Chinese are dealing with as a major issue for immediate correction.

Another is the need for greater environmental protection – brought home to us by the constant pall of smog in the cities. China is waking up – a little late – to the fact that environmental prevention is vastly better than cure.

A third is housing, a national priority in the current five-year plan. In addition to the new high rise housing springing up everywhere, our hosts showed us tightly packed, shabby older housing still often found even in Beijing and Shanghai.

Our hosts were eager for our views on many questions including our estimates of the future direction of U.S. society. This provided an opportunity to convey our sense of urgency about the Bush administration’s adventurous ambitions at home and abroad.

Our Chinese hosts emphasized that they seek normal, stable state-to-state relations with the United States. At the time of our visit – just before the revelation that China is a Pentagon nuclear target – the biggest problem they cited was Taiwan. They insist the island must be recognized as part of China, albeit under a “one state, two systems” policy of accepting Taiwan’s capitalist economy, as has been done in the case of Hong Kong, and they are very concerned about U.S. intervention that could necessitate a sharp Chinese response. Particular ire was aroused by Washington’s invitation to Taiwan’s head of state to participate in a U.S. arms seminar earlier this month.

Our Chinese hosts welcomed us with great warmth and prepared the itinerary with much care, scheduling meetings with a member of the CPC’s Political Bureau, the Minister of the CPC International Department and the head of the government’s principal policy think tank, as well as visits to a variety of enterprises, the trade union federation, and historical/cultural sites. We found our hosts willing to discuss both successes and potholes in China’s developmental path.

Many questions and concerns about China’s future development remain open, needing both much further study, and further time to ascertain. A short visit did not allow assessment of the level of popular participation in the grassroots organizations of the party and government.

But we came away with a new respect for the thoughtfulness, thoroughness, energy and optimism with which the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people are going about the complex, long-term process of building socialism in a vast developing country, which is of necessity part of an increasingly globalized economy.



CPUSA Delegation returns from China, Vietnam


Archive In the News

Author: Dan Margolis


First published 12/22/2006 10:29 by {article_topic_desc}



The CPUSA delegation met with the new union of Wal-Mart workers in China
The delegation, made up of National Chair Sam Webb, Executive Vice Chair Jarvis Tyner, International Secretary Pamella Saffer and Labor Secretary Scott Marshall, visited at the invitation of the Communist Parties of China and Vietnam.

In China, they were hosted by the CPC’s international department and were able to meet with leaders of the All China Women’s Federation, the All China Federation of Trade Unions — including a leader of the now famous Wal-Mart union — and other leaders, party members and everyday citizens.

Saffer said that, although she’d been to China before for a UN conference, this was the fist time she had ever had the chance to “experience” China. While much of the U.S. news media portrays China as a land of freewheeling capitalism and exploitation, Saffer said she was impressed by the country’s socialist construction.

“You have to get out of the mindset that socialism looks a certain way, and that we know what it looks like,” she said. “In China, laws are made to support working people.”


Jarvis Tyner plays ball with some friendly Chinese citizens.
While no one would deny China’s current problems, such as the gap between urban and rural areas, or the hardships faced by migrant workers, Saffer said that the Chinese leadership seemed to be determined to solve them.

This is what CPC leaders mean, she said, when they talk about building a “harmonious society.” She added, “They’re lifting people out of poverty. It’s an enormous task, if you picture the population of 1.3 billion.”

China’s Communist leaders expressed a desire for peace and better state-to-state relations. Saffer added, “The Chinese were pretty clear on that. They’re not into getting into any conflicts or confrontations. They want to develop their own country, continue to lift people up to a better standard of living.”

The entire delegation engaged in cultural activities, such as a visit to the Peking Opera and a visit to the China Folk Cultural Heritage Village, which showcases the culture of China’s 55 minority ethnic groups.


The CPUSA delegation visits Vietnam.
The delegation then traveled on to Vietnam. While the CPUSA has sent people to Vietnamese party congresses, and Tyner himself had visited Vietnam in 1972 while bombs were falling, this was the first official CPUSA delegation to ever visit. They described it as a moving experience.

“All of us were of the generation that had opposed the Vietnam War,” Saffer said. “It’s astonishing, the progress that Vietnam has made. One of the things that was very clear to me, and very moving, was how they have always made a distinction between the government that dropped bombs and Agent Orange on their people, on the one hand, and the American people, on the other.”
Sam Webb and Noc Duc Manh (CP Vietnam General Secretary).


“One of the challenges for Vietnam is how they are taking care of victims of Agent Orange, and their children,” she said. “These are disabled people. How do they fit them into society, to be contributing members of society? This is a challenge.”

Saffer noted Vietnam’s stunning progress since the war. It has been able, despite immense destruction wrought by the U.S. during the 1960s and 70s, to become one of the most economically dynamic nations in the world. In doing so, it has brought huge swaths of its population out of poverty — and has plans to eradicate all poverty within a few decades.


Sam Webb meets with children at Friendship Village, a joint project between Vietnamese and American war veterans to house and care for victims of the Vietnam war and agent orange.
Saffer and Webb both said that relations with between the CPUSA and the Chinese and Vietnamese parties had been further strengthened, and they look forward to building even stronger relations in the future.


BEIJING — A Communist Party USA delegation headed by national chair Sam Webb arrived here Nov. 30 for a party-to-party exchange. In the first three days the delegation visited many historic sites, including the tomb of Mao Zedong, the Great Wall of China, the Forbidden City, the Chinese People’s Revolutionary Military Museum and an exhibition on the Long March of the 1930s.

The delegation also attended a show at the Beijing Urban Planning Exhibition Hall where they saw plans for the 2008 Olympics and the city’s future. Webb said, “Everywhere you look in Beijing new buildings are being constructed. It is a city with a vibrant economic life.”

The four-person delegation includes Jarvis Tyner, the party’s executive vice chair, Scott Marshall, labor secretary, and Pamella Saffer, international secretary.

Seeing the sights was not the only item on the itinerary. The CPUSA leaders met with Communist Party of China leaders, unionists and women’s leaders.

CPC International Department Vice Minister Ma Wenpu met with the delegation over a sumptuous lunch. Explaining the role of the CPC in Chinese society, Ma said, “The goal of the Communist Party of China is to build a harmonious socialist society.”

The lunch meeting was held at the ultra-modern, newly built 16-story office building of the International Department of the CPC, which stands out as one of the most attractive buildings in all of Beijing.

Liao Dung, director-general of the CPC’s bureau for North America, Oceana and Nordic Affairs, also participated.

Earlier meetings were held with Zhu Bin, deputy director of the All China Federation of Trade Unions International Department, Zhang Shiping, member of the secretariat of the All China Women’s Federation, and Minister Wang Jiarui of the CPC’s International Department.

Among the topics discussed were China-U.S. relations, the need for six-party talks on North Korea, CPUSA and CPC relations, women’s equality, the urgent struggle to end the war in Iraq, the impact of globalization and trade issues, and China-Africa relations.

The delegation was to also visit Shenzhen and Guangzhou before making a brief visit to Vietnam.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

also known as a revisionist coup

:rolleyes:

If China had been socialist, nothing (not to mention a few men in the government) could have stopped what, 800 million people.
That very notion is ridiculous.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Indeed it is. The notion that the death of one man could instantly transform class relations is ridiculously idiotic; but it doesn't stop many a politically bankrupt "communist" from holding it.


China is hardly America's enemy

You could have read the rest of the post; but I guess that's too much to ask.

[RNK]

However they just recognize the CPC as a legitimate communist party the FRSO on the other hand goes as far as to say that China is a worker's state ruled by and for workers.

Well considering that even you have come and admitted that China isn't a worker's state ruled by the workers (because they're pursuing the industrializational powers of capitalism... whichever).. it seems the FRSO are idiots. If they're refusing to believe what even the Chinese Communist Party themselves are proclaiming, what the hell kind of people are they?

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 25, 2007, 10:44 am
A struggle by a few men in a government?

I wouldn't exactly call that a "counter-revolution".

Amazing, isn't it, how low you've gone ever since you used to argue for "friendly criticism" all those months ago. Now you just make blatant, worthless comments without any concrete facts.

The counterrevolution of 1976-78 did not involve a few men. It involved several scores of people either supporting Deng Xiaoping or Hua Guofeng, up against the more revolutionary faction of the Gang of Four with their popular support.

I recommend you read a JSTOR academic journal archive article, titled "Background to the Fall of Hua Guofeng," by Dorothy Grouse Fontana. You'll find it under Asian Survey, Vol. 22, No. 3, (Mar. 1982), pp. 237-260. It gives insight into the material conditions present in China at the time, how under such objective conditions the factions formed, and the counterrevolutionary struggle that ensued in the late 1970s in China.

[Vargha Poralli]

CEA you are missing the point made by NWOG and CdeL.The masses had no interest in defending Mao's goons during what you term as "counter revolutionary coup".So the restoration of capitalism by Deng had no opposition from Chinese workers since they really had any benefits under Mao's rule too.

And Deng was brought back by Mao himself and held the position until the death of Zhou En Lai. Which makes the credibility of your criticisms/blaming of of Deng somewhat ridiculous.

And nobody can explain what was the case with Lin Biao. He was made a second man during the starting of the Cultural revolution and suddenly after he died he was criticised along with Confucius.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 26, 2007, 11:15 am
CEA you are missing the point made by NWOG and CdeL.

No, I wasn't. I agree that a counterrevolution does not involve the replacement of one single man by another. I was pointing out that there were countless scores of people involved in the Chinese counterrevolution and that there was a class-based motive behind it, not simply the actions of one man.


The masses had no interest in defending Mao's goons during what you term as "counter revolutionary coup".

And how can you really really be so certain of that, you lived during this time period? You spoke to the countless millions of Chinese citizens, you have ample concrete proof?

And nowhere did I indicate the counterrevolution was merely a "coup," read my post more carefully.


So the restoration of capitalism by Deng had no opposition from Chinese workers since they really had any benefits under Mao's rule too.

Is that so? The events of 1989 seem to be the culmination of a decade of capitalist reforms. Or is this merely a figment of my imagination?


And Deng was brought back by Mao himself and held the position until the death of Zhou En Lai.

Yes, I already know it was Mao who "rehabilitated" Deng, which was a serious mistake, considering when one reads Deng's works throughout the 1950s and 1960s, you can see that Deng was trying very hard along with Liu Shaoqi to push for "market reforms" even back then.


Which makes the credibility of your criticisms/blaming of of Deng somewhat ridiculous.

Do you just like being provocative? It's really annoying.

I analyzed the situation in terms of classes and groups. All you and others try to do is dismiss the whole affair as the actions of one man; in this case, Mao appointing Deng, Deng taking over, end of story. No, it's not as simple as that.


And nobody can explain what was the case with Lin Biao. He was made a second man during the starting of the Cultural revolution and suddenly after he died he was criticised along with Confucius.

Lin, as an opportunist with a faction of left-deviationists, attempted to use the Cultural Revolution as a means of attacking the remaining Marxist-Leninists within the CCP, creating a personality cult around Mao, attempting to launch a coup to seize power, which failed. Most likely being under the influence of the Brezhnevite revisionists, the fact that Lin fled on the way to the U.S.S.R. and died in passage in a plane crash in Mongolia is quite telling.

[jacobin1949]

To what extent did Mao Zedong lay the foundations with Deng Xiaoping Theory and the Three Represents?
Mao Zedong Thought should continue to remain an important factor in New China's politics and life.

The great increases in trade with the outside world began under Mao in 1970 not 1979. Trade gre more rapidly from 1970-1976 than it did post1979. Mao began trade with Thailand and Asean and other right wing capitalist nations. Mao's detente with Nixon lay the diplomatic groundwork for China's emergence in the world market. In addition Mao Zedong began the development of free markets and private ownership on a small scale after 1969. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics begins in 1970 not 1979. In addition actions taken by Mao in the 1970s assured the rise of Deng and his endorsement of Hua Guofeng over the Gang of Four assured that Deng's faction would triumph. As late as 1974 he had Deng present the 3 World Theory to the UN. And the Gang of 4 not Mao purged Deng in 1974.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I'd think the Revolutionary Communist Party USA is probally most Pro-China

[RaptorJesus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:13 pm
I'd think the Revolutionary Communist Party USA is probally most Pro-China
No, the RCP, like most Maoists, have not supported the PRC since Deng instituted his economic reforms. Bob Avakian, the chairman of the RCP, fled the United States as a result of a criminal indictment for assault of a police officer which occured during an anti-Deng protest the RCP was staging.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25, 2007 11:30 pm

China is hardly America's enemy

You could have read the rest of the post; but I guess that's too much to ask.
yeah um that's pretty funny considering you ignored the first half of my response. Also I did read it. You went on to prove your point by saying that the WWP supported Saddam and Milosevic. I then pointed out that China is in no way America's enemy.


If China had been socialist, nothing (not to mention a few men in the government) could have stopped what, 800 million people.
That very notion is ridiculous.

That's because it was a seizure of power that slowly opened up the markets. For example, it was two years before the people's communes were destroyed which had been the basis of Chinese collectivism. By this time, the red guards and the masses as a whole had been dispersed, their leaders jailed, killed, or tortured, and the Party, State, and military had taken over and established themselves. Most people didn't realize what was going on until it was too late to do anything, despite that, they acted in a little event know known as the Tiannamen Square Protests of 1989. The Tiannamen Square protests' main organizers were Maoist and Communist Industrial workers fed up with reforms and the stripping of the people's basic rights. Amnesty International recorded that at the climax of the protest, communists attacked the riot cops with anything they had singing the international.


The song was a rallying anthem of the demonstrators at the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and was repeatedly sung both while marching to the Square and within the Square.
“ ...many hundreds of people (not only students) appeared on the street. They ran after the trucks and shouted protest slogans. A few stones were thrown. The soldiers opened fire with live ammunition. The crowd threw themselves on the ground, but quickly followed the convoy again. The more shots were fired, the more the crowd got determined and outraged. Suddenly they started singing the Internationale; they armed themselves with stones and threw them towards the soldiers. There were also a few Molotov cocktails and the last truck was set on fire.[5]


^ Amnesty International, 30 August, 1989. Preliminary Findings on Killings of Unarmed Civilians, Arbitrary Arrests and Summary Executions Since 3 June 1989, p.19

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationale#Chinese_lyrics)

[Janus]

Worker's World upholds it?
I don't know about "upholding" the PRC as a shiny example but they certainly support it to a greater extent than most other US Communist parties.


I'd think the Revolutionary Communist Party USA is probally most Pro-China
Pro-Maoist China maybe.

[jacobin1949]

This is the CPC's official position on Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought prooving that there is a continuity between the China of Mao Zedong and the china of today!

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66095/4471924.html

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66095/4471924.html

Comments and Historical Resolution
Comrade Mao Zedong's Historical Role and Mao Zedong Thought
--Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China (abridged)

(Adopted by the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on June 27, 1981)

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66095/4471924.html

[metalero]

so what exactly is PRC now? A burgueois capitalist society with some socialized elements? an authoritarian social democracy?

[jacobin1949]

The PRC is a Marxist-Lenninst nation this is what they believe:

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66739/4521326.html

Ideological Foundation
The Ideological and Theoretical Basis of the Communist Party of China (CPC)

The Communist Party of China (CPC) takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action and theoretical bases.

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66739/4521326.html

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:28 am
so what exactly is PRC now? A burgueois capitalist society with some socialized elements? an authoritarian social democracy?
PRC has become nothing more then a bourgeoisie capitalist authoritarian state. What little Socialism is left is slowly being destroyed, regardless of the rhetoric the "Communist" party spews.

[Janus]

so what exactly is PRC now? A burgueois capitalist society with some socialized elements? an authoritarian social democracy?
In terms of politics, it's still very much a centralized authoritarian state. As for economics however, it's a mixed economy though giving in more and more to capitalist elements and investment.

[jacobin1949]

Doesnt it seem that todays China is being held to too high a standard by the American left? I mean look at the USSR, Stalin, Castro, Hoxha, Kim , Mao and even Khruschev and Breznev. All of them had a party backing them in the USA. The PRC is far from perfect but Hoxha's Albania was hardly perfect either. In relative terms I'd say the PRC has been the msot succesful Marxist state.

[RNK]

No doubt China has been the most successful -- nobody's arguing that.

But I reject your notion that it is the most successful Marxist state on the grounds that it is clearly not Marxist. For all intents and purposes, we'd be just as useful throwing our support behind the United States of America. Both it and China are incredibly similar -- much more so than China is similar to any current or previously existing socialist society.

[Janus]

Despite the traditions that the CCP claims to hold onto, all of it their Marxist Leninist rhetoric is simply their convoluted way of thinking in which they believe that they can hold onto Maoist ideology while developing capitalism within the nation.

[jacobin1949]

The CPC sent this message

Greetings from the Communist Party of China
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/683/1/127/


Archive National Meetings 28th National Convention CPUSA July 2005 International Greetings

Author: Communist Party of China


First published 07/21/2005 15:04 by {article_topic_desc}


On the occasion of the 28th National Convention of the CPUSA, we would like to send our warmest greetings and congratulations to you and wish this convention a success.

We cherish the traditional friendship between our two parties. We hope to strengthen friendly exchanges under the new historical circumstances, so as to further develop the friendship between our two peoples.

International Department
Central Committee
Communist Party of China

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Deng Xioping Theory runs counter to Mao Zedong Thought. To think otherwise, after the historical experience of the two and how Deng Xioping Theory destroyed all socialism and progress created in the People's Republic, from things as little and important as the barefoot doctors to as large as the destruction of the People's Communes and the imprisonment and torture and killings of Mao's closest comrades such as the Gang of Four. Let us remember that it was the workers of the Tianammen Square protest singing the internationale while PRC police attacked them and beat them to pulps.

As for the CPUSA, from their participation in elections, to their open support for the bourgiousie democrats, I don't see how they are not capitalists

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As for the CPUSA, from their participation in elections, to their open support for the bourgiousie democrats, I don't see how they are not capitalists

Because they don't own means of production.

I guess is the kind of though-without-thinking that leads you to believe the USSR was "imperialist" as well.

[TC]

The people saying that the WWP and PSL are "pro-Deng" and uncritically support China are just wrong.

These groups are not like doctrinaire trotskyist parties obsessed with a particular platform or line but rather concerned with organization and building an anti-imperialist movement; while their publications take editorial positions they do not have a unified analysis on china.

They do not see the world in dogmatic black and white terms of only perfect socialist utopias and utterly worthless capitalist states, instead they express preferences in terms of more or less progressive forces.

In any case, Sam Marcy, both parties ideological founder, viewed Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four hardline radical Maoists as being the most advanced and progressive force in China, supported the Cultural Revolution against Deng Xiaoping and the reformists.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/1991/sm910620.html

However he didn't demonize Deng either, and rejected the RCP's position that, as CDL put it "the death of one man could instantly transform class relations", as being totally non-materialist, and that of course while reactionary elements exist in China without a structural level counter revolution like the one in the Soviet Union, China remains a workers state because the bulk of its capital is in collectivized property rather than private property.

http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/r_becker0114.php (the author of this piece was a WWP member at the time and is now a PSL member)

http://www.workers.org/ww/china1002.html


In this sense, the position espoused by WWP/PSL members is actually very similar to the leftwing trotskyist position that China is a degenorate workers state rather than one developing socialism or where the working class has been overthrown rather than simply compromised, although they don't use the sectarian terms as they are anti-imperialists first and prefer China to the United States.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:42 am
The PRC is a Marxist-Lenninst nation this is what they believe:

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66739/4521326.html

Ideological Foundation
The Ideological and Theoretical Basis of the Communist Party of China (CPC)

The Communist Party of China (CPC) takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action and theoretical bases.

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66739/4521326.html
The Nazis called themselves a socialist workers party too.

And Stalin and his cronies were consistently telling the world that Moscow was a bastion of worker's democracy under his rule.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 05:50 am

As for the CPUSA, from their participation in elections, to their open support for the bourgiousie democrats, I don't see how they are not capitalists

Because they don't own means of production.

I guess is the kind of though-without-thinking that leads you to believe the USSR was "imperialist" as well.
but they advocate a thouroughly capitalist position. They support and bow down to kiss the toes of the bourgeoisie and those who do own the means of production. That's capitalist cheerleading.

and the USSR was social-imperialist after 1956. Look at how it dealt with those socialist states who broke with it for example and how it split the communist movement and nearly invaded China. Read on Krushchev's Phoney Communism by Mao

[Spike]

In order for China to transition to socialism, the bourgeois revolution has to be firmly in place. Capitalism needs to industrialize the country in order to set forth conditions ripe for socialism. Marx and Engels supported imperialism in China because it would help to establish capitalism and batter down all feudal Chinese walls. If not for imperialist penetration of coastal China there would not have been a bourgeois revolution establishing the Republic of China and subsequent proletarian militancy in the 1920s such as the Guangzhou massacre of 23 June 1925.


PRC has become nothing more then a bourgeoisie capitalist authoritarian state. What little Socialism is left is slowly being destroyed, regardless of the rhetoric the "Communist" party spews.
The PRC was never a socialist country. With the destruction of the parasitical gentry, the PRC worked for a bourgeois revolution comprising land reform and political centralization.

The WWP's line has been "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" all the way back to Sam Marcy, leading them to support Saddam (after the U.S. gave up on him), Milosevic
the reactionary sections of teh Iraqi "resistance," and a host of other similar characters.
That is incorrect. Furthermore Milosevic and Saddam Hussein were both socialists resisting imperialism meaning that they were not ideologically disconnected.
Upon entering Kabul, the Taliban immediately revealed their most reactionary side, executing without trial their political opponents, barring women and girls from schools, and refusing to let women work or even leave the house. This included up to 50,000 war widows in Kabul who are the sole support for their families.
http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/afghanoil.html

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 pm
They do not see the world in dogmatic black and white terms of only perfect socialist utopias and utterly worthless capitalist states, instead they express preferences in terms of more or less progressive forces.
Actually, they do. Their parent doctrine -- "Global Class War" -- is based on the supposition that the world is divided between two great camps: the camp of capitalism/imperialism/oppressor and the camp of anti-capitalism/anti-imperialism/oppressed.

Someone should do a Wiki entry on it at some point, so that others will be familiar with the theory.

Miles

[TC]

Originally posted by Miles+April 16, 2007 09:19 am--> (Miles @ April 16, 2007 09:19 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 pm
They do not see the world in dogmatic black and white terms of only perfect socialist utopias and utterly worthless capitalist states, instead they express preferences in terms of more or less progressive forces.
Actually, they do. Their parent doctrine -- "Global Class War" -- is based on the supposition that the world is divided between two great camps: the camp of capitalism/imperialism/oppressor and the camp of anti-capitalism/anti-imperialism/oppressed.

Someone should do a Wiki entry on it at some point, so that others will be familiar with the theory.

Miles [/b]
err you're either confused about my comment or about their theory.

To understand global class war, which is to say, class struggle on the geopolitical strategic scale, is not to believe that every state with collectivized property is a perfect socialist utopia, but to loyally support the states of the socialist camp even when you disagree with the particular government or governing faction in power, because even if a particular faction is regressive within the particular government (as Deng's was), the state itself is still progressive on the global scale.

Likewise it means opposing any attempt to split the socialist camp.

This doesn't mean that they can't make distinctions between factions and between healthier and more corrupt workers states, or between workers democracies and full socialist states.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by TragicClown+April 16, 2007 11:44 am--> (TragicClown @ April 16, 2007 11:44 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:19 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 pm
They do not see the world in dogmatic black and white terms of only perfect socialist utopias and utterly worthless capitalist states, instead they express preferences in terms of more or less progressive forces.
Actually, they do. Their parent doctrine -- "Global Class War" -- is based on the supposition that the world is divided between two great camps: the camp of capitalism/imperialism/oppressor and the camp of anti-capitalism/anti-imperialism/oppressed.

Someone should do a Wiki entry on it at some point, so that others will be familiar with the theory.

Miles
err you're either confused about my comment or about their theory.

To understand global class war, which is to say, class struggle on the geopolitical strategic scale, is not to believe that every state with collectivized property is a perfect socialist utopia, but to loyally support the states of the socialist camp even when you disagree with the particular government or governing faction in power, because even if a particular faction is regressive within the particular government (as Deng's was), the state itself is still progressive on the global scale.

Likewise it means opposing any attempt to split the socialist camp.

This doesn't mean that they can't make distinctions between factions and between healthier and more corrupt workers states, or between workers democracies and full socialist states. [/b]
I agree that there is that kind of explanation given by GCW types -- but usually not in public. In fact, the dynamics of the GCW trend are such that, for the sake of not "splitting the socialist camp", they will defend the most foul of acts by these regimes. GCW was born in defense of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and reached maturity when it backed the Chinese repression of the Tiananmen protests in 1989.

All of the privately-expressed rhetorical backflips in the world cannot make up for this kind ofpublic "black-and-white" betrayal.

Miles