China

[Nikkolas]

1. What is China's current political situation? Communist in name only?

2. Do current prominent socialist and communist activists defend or promote China? And should I?

[Vargha Poralli]

1. What is China's current political situation? Communist in name only?

The current political situations was same as it is in 80's. I wish soon they drop the name Communist Party of China.


2. Do current prominent socialist and communist activists defend or promote China? And should I?

To my knowledge the Naxalit CPI(ML)(Liberation) in India is supported by and supports PRC.

I will not defend China. It was never Socialist IMO.

[Janus]

What is China's current political situation? Communist in name only?
Politically, they still consider themselves socialist since they have continued to maintain a mixed economy. However, the party is continuing to swing more towards capitalist (look at the recent Party congress).


And should I?
Don't rely on others to dictate your beliefs to you. Analyze the facts and come to your own conclusions. I would say that no true lucid communist could think that the current Chinese brand of socialism will ever lead to communism.

[( R )evolution]

1. What is China's current political situation? Communist in name only?

Essential they are communist only in name. They have been taking a swing towards capitalism especially with the new law that was recently passed that supports the protection of private property. But they still retain a mixed economy.


2. Do current prominent socialist and communist activists defend or promote China? And should I?

Some communist groups in India and Southeast Asia support the PRC in order to gain funding from them. But most western organizations do not support the Chinese communist part. I personally do not support China because they were never really communist and contuine to tarnish the name of communism. Every time, in the west, China resirtcs personal civil liberties especially stopping people from expressing their opinions, the west says look at the horrible communist regime in china. And the average American does not realize that China is really not communist so they get a horrible picture and a tarnished view of real communism. All thanks to Bourgeois propaganda

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:52 am
1. What is China's current political situation? Communist in name only?

2. Do current prominent socialist and communist activists defend or promote China? And should I?
1) Technicly speaking they are not communist in name, that is the party has never claimed China is communist. Rather they claim to be building towards socialism and practicing the "primary stage of socialism". At the moment their markets are far to free, and the workers seem to have minimal control, for it to be considered socialist by all but the most abstract definitions.

2) Very few communist parties model themselves around the current day political line of the communist party of china, with a few exceptions. There are some parties who claim that China is socialist and should be supported as such, even if not following their line specificly.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well i think they understand that you cannot build an industrial socialist society when all you have are millions of peasants and you are isolated between the Soviet Union and America.

They simply chose the right option which is to develop.

However, by turning more towards capitalism they bring about the same problems wich capitalism faces, and hopefully the Chinese workers can take political power and be real socialist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:52 am
Well i think they understand that you cannot build an industrial socialist society when all you have are millions of peasants and you are isolated between the Soviet Union and America.

They simply chose the right option which is to develop.

Horseshit. have you taken a gander at the economic growth records of the People's Republic while it was still socialist?

[chimx]

Horseshit. have you taken a gander at the economic growth records of the People's Republic while it was still socialist?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

[Janus]

I'm pretty sure that BCS was talking about China's industrialization and modernization under Mao.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Horseshit. have you taken a gander at the economic growth records of the People's Republic while it was still socialist?

indeed i have.

Growth though, does not indicate quality of goods, the level of domestic consumption, consumption rates between urban Chinese and rural Chinese. It does not indicate the development of a balanced means of production, as we can see today, one of chinas problems is that it still produces (for export) light goods and fabrics.

Growth is not the only thing Marxists look at. Looking at the quality of produce is just as important as the qauntity of produce, like wise the quality of the means of production is as important as the size of the means of production, the quality of the work force is as important as the quantity of the workforce.

So, people melting down pots and pans to make knives to sell to other countries might indicate a significant achievement to Maoists because of the obvious economic growth this brought, but the quality of home production was clearly less than produce from the more advanced countries.

Growth as a measure is a fine indicator, but its meaningless unless you know the nature of the society from when you start measuring growth.

[Lenin II]

http://www.soviet-empire.com/images/humour/capitalist_cpc.gif

[RedArmyFaction]

Hi Comrades,

I've had something on my mind regarding Communist inspired China. China is one of the worlds fastest growing economies and some people say that in a few years from now, their economy will be better than USA and the UK. This is where i'm lost and confused : Communism is a anti capitalist doctrine. So how did China get such a booming economy without the influence of capitalism ?
I think this is where Communism has changed from what Engels and Marx proposed. I think in todays world nations feel pressured to give the best to it's people by producing a strong economy. Is it possible for a communist country to have a powerful economy without capitalism ?

[Janus]

This is where i'm lost and confused : Communism is a anti capitalist doctrine. So how did China get such a booming economy without the influence of capitalism ?
This seeming contradiction can be easily solved by the fact that China is not communist. Even though the CCP still maintains a mixed economy, it is embracing capitalism more and more.

[Janus]

No reason to have two separate threads on this.
Merged.

[Chavizta]

China has really strayed from Mao's teachings and has given into western capitalism. As a result in places like Hong Kong the class struggle is full under way. You have poor farmworkers being forced into the city's where they live in horrible conditions and are often exploited by newly created capitalist corporations. It's a sad thing to see what China is becoming.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:01 pm


Horseshit. have you taken a gander at the economic growth records of the People's Republic while it was still socialist?

indeed i have.

Growth though, does not indicate quality of goods, the level of domestic consumption, consumption rates between urban Chinese and rural Chinese. It does not indicate the development of a balanced means of production, as we can see today, one of chinas problems is that it still produces (for export) light goods and fabrics.

Growth is not the only thing Marxists look at. Looking at the quality of produce is just as important as the qauntity of produce, like wise the quality of the means of production is as important as the size of the means of production, the quality of the work force is as important as the quantity of the workforce.

So, people melting down pots and pans to make knives to sell to other countries might indicate a significant achievement to Maoists because of the obvious economic growth this brought, but the quality of home production was clearly less than produce from the more advanced countries.

Growth as a measure is a fine indicator, but its meaningless unless you know the nature of the society from when you start measuring growth.
oh okay well I see your point now, but quality of goods is and was a problem in any developing country, especially one that is doing it as rapidly as China was from 1949-1976 and in such a progressive socialist and co-operative way. Even if you discount economic growth there are clear signs at every corner like the jump in standards of living and literacy and life expectancy etc... all signs of massive progress and at the rate it was happening

[RNK]

I don't think the Chinese support the Naxalites; they are closely tied with the Nepali Maoists and I know that the PRC does not like the Nepali Maoists; they call them an "unstable regional force".

China is not socialist. Not even close. It has completely adopted capitalism, and has a fully developed bourgeois in control of the state.

[Robo the Hobo]

I would like to add something to the discusion if I may, what are your views on the chinese revolution before its obviouse betrayal of communism?

Was Mao someone whos views should have been supported?

Where and when did they fail?

[RNK]

IMO, what Mao tried to do during the Cultural revolution was the "closest" we've ever come to "Communism". It was a solid, honest attempt to completely eradicate, once and for all, all remaining notions of capitalism and class contradiction. Unfortunately, by that point, Mao had become very unpopular with the rest of his Party. One of the major targets of the Cultural revolution was the Party itself. Mao warned against "capitalist roaders" in the Communist party. Naturally, those in the Party who had become accustomed to their privilege and alienation from society fought against Mao's attempts to dissolve the state; after the famine fiasco earlier in his career, Mao was subverted, his supporters in the party arrested or killed, and Deng (and his supporters) took over, instituting their policy of party privilege.

They failed because, as in the USSR, elements of the Chinese Communist Party became the buraucratic enemy of the people. Rather than worker's control, China was given party control; although the Party "claimed" to act for the workers, it very clearly did not.

[Robo the Hobo]

What I have heard about the cultural revolution may not all be right, but it seems to me as though it was a reasonably brutal way of permenantly erradicating capitalism, by killing anyone who was not communist.

Please correct me in the ways I was wrong in what I just said, as I probably have some misconceptions in relation to what happened in china during the whole period.

[Janus]

but it seems to me as though it was a reasonably brutal way of permenantly erradicating capitalism, by killing anyone who was not communist.
It wasn't just capitalism that was being attacked but anyone within the Party or society whom Mao or the Red Guards were opposed to. Despite Mao's theoretical rhetoric behind the implications and goals of the Cultural Revolution, the practical result was much more chaotic to the point that he admitted that he himself could no longer control it and was forced to call in the PLA to stop it.

[Janus]

what are your views on the chinese revolution before its obviouse betrayal of communism?
Well, it was certainly progressive for its time but that's not saying a whole lot.


Was Mao someone whos views should have been supported?
It depends on who you ask. His policies certainly had many practical benefits for the people whom he sought to liberate but this doesn't necessarily justify the bureaucracy and damages which he also caused.

[chimx]

Well, it was certainly progressive for its time but that's not saying a whole lot.

I agree, that isn't sayin' a whole lot! More so than anything, Mao was a nationalist. He was never the most conservative, nor the most radical when it came to Marxist politics and economics. He generally worked to do that which was most benefitial to the Chinese economy.

I had tried to imply it earlier when I told LeftyHenry that correlation does not equate to causation. If you look at the actual history of China, you will see that the country was massively fragmented. While it had been the most advanced civilization for centuries prior to the decline of feudalism in Europe, Chinese politics and economics had been in massive disarray during the later periods of the Qing Dynasty do to conservativism, isolationism, and massive civil wars.

China had made the leap to world leader centuries earlier because it was able to create a centralized economy. When national unity declined, so did the Chinese civilization.

Despite this, we still hear the redundant claims that Mao was solely responsible for saving China, advancing industry, making it a world power once again. But I have yet to be shown *any* evidence on this website that Maoist communism was the saving grace of China, and not the creation of a centralized national economy. If the Kuomintang had been successful 1950, my bet is that industry still would have flourished, China still would have "caught up". The only thing that would have been different is that pseudo-intellectual leftists would not be acting like cheerleaders for a capitalist government that thrives on the exploitation of labor!

[Robo the Hobo]

A question this would bring me onto (the cultural revolution) is the question of wether it is right for a socialist government (even if it does represent the people) to use force to get rid of opposition to Revolutionary ideas, and if so, what degree of force, and what groups of opposition: only capitalists? only armed opposition movements? does it have the right to persecute religions? this will probably be a subject of disagreement, but all of your views would be apreciated.

[RNK]

What I have heard about the cultural revolution may not all be right, but it seems to me as though it was a reasonably brutal way of permenantly erradicating capitalism, by killing anyone who was not communist.

No. According to post-Mao, pro-Deng revisionists, the cultural revolution was a petty attempt by Mao to maintain control over China. According to Mao's supporters in the CCP at the time, the cultural revolution was an attempt to continue to revolutionize society, dissolve the government, place all power into the hands of the people and eradicate, once and for all, the remnants of the bourgeoisie -- who Mao insisted had "survived" the revolution by becoming the beauraucratic communist party itself. Mao (unlike what many on this board will tell you) was against beauraucratic party control, and the cultural revolution was an attempt to stop the "party takeover" of society. Eventually, though, Mao was defeated, his supporters killed or imprisoned (some remain in prison to this day, refusing to yield submission to the current Chinese Communist Party), and his opposition -- the current leadership of China, who Mao called bourgeoisie roaders (which, given the evidence, seemed completely correct) -- revised history to be in their favour.

[Robo the Hobo]

From what I have read so far on the communist party of china, and in particular the cultural revolution, (mainly from a human rights group) used things like torture and large amounts of execution..... was that mainly from the post mao party, was it unsanctioned, was it neccesary?

[RNK]

Again, depends who you ask. Some say it was a spontaneous movement initiated by the people who were met with violence from counter-revolutionary, buraeucratic elements of a new developing ruling class and the people acted accordingly; others insist Mao ordered that anyone suspected of not being a communist should be killed.

It's hard to say, again, because we have three points of view; that of the supporters of the revolution; that of western anti-communists; and that of the post-Mao leaders who wanted to discredit Mao but not completely remove him. I suggest you research some texts on it, from different points of view, read about it, and make your own conclusion.

In my opinion...

No, I have never seen any evidence of the widespread torture and death that some claim occured. Nor have I seen any credible evidence that Mao wanted to kill everyone suspected of being counter-revolutionary. What I do see is that the cultural revolution was a spontaneous movement initiated by the people against the Party itself and the new ruling class of counter-revolutionary intellectuals; that it was supported by Mao; that some of Mao's closest supporters started the "cult of personality" to invigorate and motivate the people; that it was not necessarily violent (though of course some violence did occur), but more about public 'outing' counter-revolutionaries, having them removed from influential positions of authority, and attempting to prevent being overtaken by bureaucracy; and that the entire cultural revolution constituted the first legitimate attempt to completely eradicate the old notions of the state. I do believe, though, that if this is true, that it may have been attempted too hastily.

[Janus]

and in particular the cultural revolution, (mainly from a human rights group) used things like torture and large amounts of execution.
There definitely were tortures of accused counter-revolutionaries though executions were a bit more rare.


was that mainly from the post mao party,
The condemnation of the Cultural Revolution?


was it unsanctioned, was it neccesary?
The necessity of it can be debated as those who conducted the Cultural Revolution campaigns certainly felt that they were technically sanctioned by Mao and were necessary.

[Robo the Hobo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:23 am


was that mainly from the post mao party,
The condemnation of the Cultural Revolution?



I meant the human rights abuses that took place, and the work against freedom of speach, (although that is probably more recent. Thankyou for all of your feedback, it has helped me understand the situation more than before your comments

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I have been arguing with someone all day whos visited China. He says if you say "Im not a communist" there, youl be arested! If tried to say its not true communism, but he refuses to accept this. He goes on about Mao and China as if it was true communism example:
"Communism is against democracy...because you cant vote in China"
Im very pissed off. Hes religious, so I said China is as communist as the KKK where true Christians...but he still doesnt get it. He said "how can yoube a communist if you have not been to a communist country"
I say: "because there isnt one"
"China"
I almost jumped through the window at this point!

[Janus]

He says if you say "Im not a communist" there, youl be arested!
I'm not sure where he went but it certainly wasn't the PRC.


"Communism is against democracy...because you cant vote in China"
There are elections in China at the national level and at the local level too. So once again, I have no idea where he went but it definitely wasn't the PRC.