China - what is it?

[Trystan]

Personally, I think that their fusion of ultra capitalism and state control is closer to fascism than it is to socialism or a deformed workers' state. It's also worth noting that labour rights are almost nonexistent and that organizing a union is banned.

Discuss?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It has been covered many times before here..

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-china-still-t68735/index.html?t=68735&highlight=viet+world+bank) So is china still a communist country? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-china-still-t68735/index.html?t=68735&highlight=viet+world+bank)

How can China and North Korea be considered "degenerated workers states"? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-china-and-t83854/index.html?t=83854&highlight=viet+world+bank)

This is what I've contributed to the discussion before: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1065487&postcount=37

China is now capitalist.

[More Fire for the People]

China is a mixture of capitalist, state-capitalist, bureaucratic collectivist, and cooperative-socialist relations. Since the 1970s the bureaucratic collectivist and state-capitalist sectors have preyed upon the destruction of socialist cooperatives, and since the 1990s capitalist and semi-state-capitalist relations have in most cases replaced both bureaucratic collectivist and socialist-cooperative relations. Hence, China is capitalist.

[spartan]

Some people think that it's still socialist (though obviously an undemocratic form) whilst some think it's gone over to the capitalists.

There socialist market economy system basically works like this; Major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with each other within a pricing system set by the market. Unlike market socialism China doesn't routinely intervene in the setting of prices nor does it favour state owned enterprises over private ones (of which there are a growing number in China).

The same system is used in Vietnam.

I suppose it is a mixed economy in the truest sense of the word but it is combined with an undemocratic political system.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Viet Nam and China are not the same. Though they may have similar policies in some regards, property relations in them and their economies are different.

Viet Nam is on the road to capitalist restoration, but it is not yet capitalist.

[A New Era]

Of course, China is capitalist.

[F9]

clearly isnt socialist country or degenerate workers' stat,but it isnt a facsist country neither,fascist its too hard to say it for a capitalist country which clearly china is!

Fuserg9:star:

[trivas7]

China is a mixture of capitalist, state-capitalist, bureaucratic collectivist, and cooperative-socialist relations. Since the 1970s the bureaucratic collectivist and state-capitalist sectors have preyed upon the destruction of socialist cooperatives, and since the 1990s capitalist and semi-state-capitalist relations have in most cases replaced both bureaucratic collectivist and socialist-cooperative relations. Hence, China is capitalist.
Nice analysis, then why conclude that it is capitalist? IMO the Marxist view is to leave all its contraditions intact.

[Pogue]

Authoritarian capitalist.

[rocker935]

Undemocratic Capitalism (but isn't capitalism in itself undemocratic?)

[Dr Mindbender]

state capitalist.

[Holden Caulfield]

state capitalist.

and therefore a degenerated workers state

[Lost In Translation]

To quote drosera99, it's capitalist. To add some originality to this post, it's authoritarian. I still have a hard time understanding how western society portrays modern China as "communist" though...

[comrade stalin guevara]

If china has capitolist policy and it obviously benefits the people it does not contradict socialisim, so china is communist!!!

[Lost In Translation]

If china has capitolist policy and it obviously benefits the people it does not contradict socialisim, so china is communist!!!
What???!!! If china has capitalist policies, it contradicts socialism regardless of the benefits the people get.


btw, csg, your punctuation is really improving ;)

[comrade stalin guevara]

I knew id be condemed for that comment,
its one i took from gorbachev i know china is capitolist
i just board, just finished spamming the anti commie site lol.

Thanks gc94 i have been trying

[Redmau5]

and therefore a degenerated workers state

The Trotskyist idea of a deformed workers' state is very different from Cliffite state capitalism. So by no means do a deformed workers' state and "state capitalism" have anything in common.

[shorelinetrance]

I still have a hard time understanding how western society portrays modern China as "communist" though...

Because most of the world isn't class conscious and still refers to cuba as communist:rolleyes:. Most of the world is ignorant of what communism really is, also it's in the capitalist agenda to slander any leftist ideas at immoral or evil through the media.

It's how they capture the workers ideologies and make the working class stagnate, and remain completely unaware.

[redwinter]

Very interesting topic....I'd like to second that China is definitely not a socialist society. Here I'll quote at length from a new article by Raymond Lotta in this week's issue of Revolution newspaper (www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us)) titled China's Capitalist Development and China's Rise in the World Imperialist System: Its Nature and Implications, part 2 of a series called "Shifts and Faultlines in the World Economy and Great Power Rivalry: What is Happening and What it Might Mean."



Many people assume that China is a socialist society—after all, its leaders describe their system as socialist and there is, in name, a ruling communist party. But socialism no longer exists in China. It was overthrown in October 1976. Deng Xiaoping and other leading neo-capitalist forces within the Chinese Communist Party carried out a military coup soon after Mao Tsetung died. These forces moved quickly to arrest the Maoist leadership core and to suppress revolutionary opposition.

A new capitalist class rules China. It is subordinate to and dominated by imperialism. Indeed, imperialism has deeply penetrated Chinese society and economy: through investments by transnational corporations…through the activities of global finance…through the influence of imperialist-controlled institutions like the World Bank and World Trade Organization…and through channels of culture and ideology.
China is dependent on imperialism: on massive inflows of investment capital into the Chinese economy; and on access to the export markets of the advanced capitalist countries, like the U.S., Japan, and Germany. This is what has been and what is now most determining of China’s capitalist development.

At the same time, precisely because China has been such a profitable arena for imperialist investment—based on its vast supply of super-exploitable labor, which is China’s “competitive advantage” in the world system—China’s economy has been growing rapidly. As this has continued, and as China’s rulers have acted to strengthen their base of power and initiative, China has gained increasing influence and leverage. This is occurring in a framework in which imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, dominates China.

China’s rulers are, increasingly, seeking to carve out space and pursue their own geostrategic interests within this framework and on the same underlying basis: the savage exploitation of wage labor. But in pursuing their interests, China’s capitalist rulers are presenting challenges to a framework that has largely benefited U.S. imperialism.

China may in fact be in transition to becoming an imperialist power. But whether it does, or does not, will not just be a function of economic factors, and certainly not simply those internal to China. Rather, this will turn on different and interpenetrating economic, political, and military developments in the world system, including unexpected developments: crises, wars, class struggles in China and the world, and revolutions.

Overall, a complex dynamic of dependency and growing strength is shaping China’s development and rise in the world imperialist system—and reacting back on this system. How this plays out is not predetermined. But it is already a major and defining faultline in the world.
(Source: http://www.revcom.us/a/137/lotta_faultlines_pt2-en.html)


Quite a lot to dig into!

[Aurelia]

Actually China's current imperialist foreign policy isn't much different than the social-imperialist theory of the Third World posited by Mao and his successors, the only difference is that under Mao in order to combat Soviet social-imperialism Mao engaged in their own brand of imperialism cloaked in left-wing rhetoric (much like Cuba), such as supporting UNITA in Angola etc, the invasion of Vietnam because it was pro-Soviet etc.

The only state which had a really socialist foreign policy during the Cold War was Albania, they both rejected Soviet social-imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism, as well as the Non-aligned capitulationist movement of Yugoslavia.

[OI OI OI]

Originaly posted by: (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=15127)
Holden Caulfield (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=15127)

and therefore a degenerated workers state

China was never a workers state so therefore it is impossible that it would be a degenerated workers state. China was from the beggining a deformed workers state(always according to trots) due to the nature of the Maoist revolution.
Therefore China can be either a deformed workers state or a degenerated deformed workers state(ie capitalist state). I think it is closer to the second , although my knowledge on China after the 70s is kind of limited .
I really need to read more on that topic :)

[Devrim]

state capitalistand therefore a degenerated workers state

You are really mixing up two different analysis here.

In our opinion China is capitalist.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

Its capitalist, a combination of state capitalism and normal capitalism, but moving towards from state capitalism to normal capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if fascism becomes an important force in China though.

[Aurelia]

Its capitalist, a combination of state capitalism and normal capitalism, but moving towards from state capitalism to normal capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if fascism becomes an important force in China though.
Fascism is a redundant term post-Keynesianism, because fascism economically was about nations creating their own self-sustaining markets, politically maybe China might become more fascist, but post protectionism it can't be economically fascist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Therefore China can be either a deformed workers state or a degenerated deformed workers state(ie capitalist state). I think it is closer to the second , although my knowledge on China after the 70s is kind of limited .A deformed workers state is not the same as a capitalist state. A deformed workers state is a state where capitalism has been overthrown (and so the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class with independent property roots, although the remnants of the bourgeois class may still exist and attempt to restore capitalism by force, or by working inside the party apparatus to undermine socialism) and the state has taken control of the productive forces, but the proletariat has never exercised political power, because capitalism was overthrown by an occupying power without a revolution, or because the party which overthrew capitalism was not based on the strength of the urban proletariat. In a deformed workers state, a bureaucratic stratum has established a hegemony on political activity, and unless the stratum is destroyed and replaced with a system of proletarian democracy, the bureaucracy will attempt to transform itself into a new ruling class to establish a secure basis for material privilege, by gaining ownership of the means of production, and abolishing the gains of the planned economy. A degenerated workers state also suffers from the problem of bureaucracy, but is not the same as a deformed workers state, as the proletariat used to exercise political power.

China is now a capitalist country. The process of restoration was initiated by Deng Xiao-Ping in 1976, but the Communist Party has been able to retain power by suppressing political dissent. However, China is a capitalist country facing imperialist oppression, not, as some people might try to argue, part of the imperialist bloc.


China was never a workers state so therefore it is impossible that it would be a degenerated workers stateA workers state is any state where the economy is based on collectivized property relations, and so a deformed workers state would fall inside this category. A healthy workers state is a workers state which does not suffer from bureacratic deformation.


I wouldn't be surprised if fascism becomes an important force in China though.Fascism is system of government which only gains the support of the bourgeoisie under specific conditions - when the bourgeoisie is faced with the danger of social revolution and so resorts to authoritarian methods of political control to defend private property and undermine the intensity of class struggle, by destroying proletarian organizations and promoting the idea that a unity of interests exists between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not simply a term which can be used to refer to any government someone does not support, and fascism is not synonymous with political oppression, although this is a common feature of fascist governments.

[Hit The North]

It's a capitalist society with an Asiatic state formation.

[Philosophical Materialist]

China is a capitalist country characterised by a mixed economy and an increasingly prominent bourgeoisie.

I get the impression that the bourgeoisie is currently wrestling with the CPC's ruling bureaucratic parasite caste for overall political power. The latter reintroduced market capitalism, and they will eventually be overthrown by the bourgeoisie that they allowed to develop and it will be their downfall.

I don't think China is in any way fascist, and does not have the social or economic traits of fascism. I believe that China was once a workers' state with bureaucratic deformation, but only the bureaucratic caste remains with socialism being extinguished from China post-Mao.

[OI OI OI]

A workers state is any state where the economy is based on collectivized property relations, and so a deformed workers state would fall inside this category. A healthy workers state is a workers state which does not suffer from bureacratic deformation.

Yes I meant that China was never a healthy workers state so it cannot be a degenerated workers state but a deformed workers state. Sorry my bad , but I typed it early in the morning after a night of drinking:)



A deformed workers state is not the same as a capitalist state. A deformed workers state is a state where capitalism has been overthrown (and so the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class with independent property roots, although the remnants of the bourgeois class may still exist and attempt to restore capitalism by force, or by working inside the party apparatus to undermine socialism) and the state has taken control of the productive forces, but the proletariat has never exercised political power, because capitalism was overthrown by an occupying power without a revolution, or because the party which overthrew capitalism was not based on the strength of the urban proletariat. In a deformed workers state, a bureaucratic stratum has established a hegemony on political activity, and unless the stratum is destroyed and replaced with a system of proletarian democracy, the bureaucracy will attempt to transform itself into a new ruling class to establish a secure basis for material privilege, by gaining ownership of the means of production, and abolishing the gains of the planned economy. A degenerated workers state also suffers

Good explanation although we were saying the same thing as I was talking about China in the present.
By degenerated deformed workers state I meant capitalism it was just a play of words , rather unfortunate though :lol:




China is now a capitalist country. The process of restoration was initiated by Deng Xiao-Ping in 1976, but the Communist Party has been able to retain power by suppressing political dissent. However, China is a capitalist country facing imperialist oppression, not, as some people might try to argue, part of the imperialist bloc

Yes I agree.


Anyways I ll give you a rep point because you went on all this trouble to explain it and you did an excellent job:)

[trivas7]

It's a capitalist society with an Asiatic state formation.
What's an Asiatic state formation? Do you mean the Asiatic mode of production? I don't see how that applies to a capitalist economy.

[More Fire for the People]

It's a capitalist society with an Asiatic state formation.
:laugh: Did you pull that out of your ass?

[Sam_b]

Capitalist.

[Aurelia]

What's an Asiatic state formation? Do you mean the Asiatic mode of production? I don't see how that applies to a capitalist economy.
I believe he means the form of production in ancient China whereby someone owned property by right of being a citizen in the state.

[Hit The North]

:laugh: Did you pull that out of your ass? Yes, it smelled surprisingly sweet. :)

But bare with me...

Capitalist development in the West arose out of societies which had cultures of private ownership. In the East, where feudalism didn't exist and property was subject to state control, the development of capitalism has taken on different form of development.

How is the manner in which the Chinese Communist Party has administered the economic relations been much different from how former Chinese states operated? Similar parallels exist between the tsarist State and the Stalinist State.

I'm basically arguing a State Capitalist position, but founded on the historical differences between the class formations and their relation to the political State in pre-capitalist East and West. In this theory, tradition plays a heavier role in outcomes - there is more continuity - and it is not so easily swept aside by political seizures of power. In fact, "it weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

I think it's a plausible hypothesis within the bounds of historical materialism.

[Pogue]

It's definatly capitalist, anything they label socialist is the left-overs of their past, which the government clings onto in an attempt to justify their control of the country.

[More Fire for the People]

Bob the Builder... I suggest you read a book on Chinese History because you obviously don't know what your talking about.

[Saorsa]

OMFG, China under Mao had nothing whatsoever to do with ancient, feudal China. Property relations were totally changed, with land being given to the tiller and ater collectives being formed, thus destroying the landlord class.


How is the manner in which the Chinese Communist Party has administered the economic relations been much different from how former Chinese states operated?

It administered them on a socialist basis. A revolutionary government took on the challenge of radically transforming society, empowering the workers and peasants with collectives in the countryside and workers councils in the city's, as well as three-part management of factories (workers, management and Communist Party each made up one third of the committees) and workplaces.

Previously the state had simply enforced feudalistic property relations, and upheld the power of the landlord class.



Similar parallels exist between the tsarist State and the Stalinist State.


No they don't. Stalin took on the task of socialist transformation of Russia, and the economy was rationally planned on a socialist basis. He took a heavily flawed approach, one that neglected socialist democracy and ultimately led to the disempowerment of the working class, but the fact remains that under his leadership Russia was radically transformed and great things were achieved. To ignore that is ridiculous.

[Comrade B]

Pure satanic evil. AKA Pure capitalist society. Minimal (if any?) trade restrictions.

[Yehuda Stern]

The alternatives are bullshit as they are presented. I don't think China is a workers' state, or that it has ever been one. It has been state capitalist since the 1950s, but I don't think one could say its a fascist state.

[BobKKKindle$]

How is the manner in which the Chinese Communist Party has administered the economic relations been much different from how former Chinese states operated?

The Chinese Revolution resulted in important changes in the way the economy was organised - the peasants were able to take control of the land and so abolished the power of the landlord class, all debts owed by the lower strata of the peasantry were canceled without forcing the peasants to pay any form of compensation, and during the revolution new areas of land were brought into cultivation to deal with the problems of food shortages and the high prices of basic foodstuffs. As a result of these changes and other reforms implemented by the revolutionary government, life expectancy rose from thirty two years (1949) to sixty five (1975) and literacy expanded from around ten percent in 1949 (although the rate for women and other oppressed social groups was much lower than the average figure) to above eighty percent in the 1970s (Source: Set The Record Straight Project, Raymond Lotta). If the organization of the economy had remained the same, which is what you seem to be suggesting based on the above comment, these changes would not have been possible.

[Chapter 24]

To quote drosera99, it's capitalist. To add some originality to this post, it's authoritarian. I still have a hard time understanding how western society portrays modern China as "communist" though...

Because for one the CPC still consider themselves "red" and another is that the western media have been feeding the masses anti-communist propaganda since even befor ehte beginning of the Cold War, thus if China is "officially" considered to be free-market then that would disregard what the media has been saying about its "regime" since 1949.

[Lamanov]

Oh, China is a degenerated workers' state ... Not! :bored:

It's state capitalist society, with new bases for "private" capitalism.

[Hit The North]

The Chinese Revolution resulted in important changes in the way the economy was organised - the peasants were able to take control of the land and so abolished the power of the landlord class, all debts owed by the lower strata of the peasantry were canceled without forcing the peasants to pay any form of compensation, and during the revolution new areas of land were brought into cultivation to deal with the problems of food shortages and the high prices of basic foodstuffs. As a result of these changes and other reforms implemented by the revolutionary government, life expectancy rose from thirty two years (1949) to sixty five (1975) and literacy expanded from around ten percent in 1949 (although the rate for women and other oppressed social groups was much lower than the average figure) to above eighty percent in the 1970s (Source: Set The Record Straight Project, Raymond Lotta). If the organization of the economy had remained the same, which is what you seem to be suggesting based on the above comment, these changes would not have been possible.


I'm not denying that the Maoists were modernizers. Of course they were. But the undoubted economic gains you mention don't tell us anything about the relationship between governors and the governed, the relation of social classes to the State or the mode of production itself. Moreover, when we talk about pre-modern Chinese modes of production, we're not discussing backward, stagnant societies, but the most advanced technological economy up until, at least, the 17th Century.

My general proposition is that the historical fact of the Asiatic mode of production, plus the impact of imperialism on China, both of which led to the absence of a strong, independent and progressive bourgeoisie, meant that the "standard" pattern of economic development from feudalism to capitalism as the product of the agency of a bourgeois class, was not available. Instead, there was a tradition of State control over the economic affairs of the nation by a bureaucratic elite. What was required was to hitch this traditional practice of economic organization to an ideology of modernization, which paradoxically fell to a State-sanctified version of Marxism.

I mean, Mao wasn't the first great Chinese leader to appeal to the peasantry as a protector against the private ambitions of merchants, local landlords and speculators. Chinese history is full of such leaders.

[revolution inaction]

Fascism is a redundant term post-Keynesianism, because fascism economically was about nations creating their own self-sustaining markets, politically maybe China might become more fascist, but post protectionism it can't be economically fascist.

I disagree, wasn't there considerable foreign investment in nazi Germany? I was also thinking of fascism as a movement more than a system of government.




Fascism is system of government which only gains the support of the bourgeoisie under specific conditions - when the bourgeoisie is faced with the danger of social revolution and so resorts to authoritarian methods of political control to defend private property and undermine the intensity of class struggle, by destroying proletarian organizations and promoting the idea that a unity of interests exists between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not simply a term which can be used to refer to any government someone does not support, and fascism is not synonymous with political oppression, although this is a common feature of fascist governments.


I agree with this, by fascism I meant a nationalist movement that protects the bourgeoisie through violence against socialists and creating a false national unity.
When I said I thought it could become an important force in China, I meant that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with and opposition to the government in China, if this where to become a significant force then the bourgeoisie might choose the fascist approach. How ever the current government is already vary repressive and I doubt a fascist movement could do better, so it is unlikely.

[Sendo]

Or you get the lovely "China has a capitalist economy but a communist form of government".

As opposed to the squashing of anti-Soviet critics in the Alied nations in the 1939-45 period, the Western nations have now completely conflated authoritarianism, fascism, and communism.

It's an interesting doublethink that allows people to know that USSR and US and UK were allies in WW2 against the great evil of fascism, but now crypto-fascism is the better alternative to "Communism", and that the "American way" has always stood in contrast to socialism.

So now it's important for the Western media to say China has propsperous billionaires because of capitalist reforms, but the vast majority of people are living hand to mouth and have no political voice because of communist remnants. Ridiculous.

[RedHal]

Or you get the lovely "China has a capitalist economy but a communist form of government".

As opposed to the squashing of anti-Soviet critics in the Alied nations in the 1939-45 period, the Western nations have now completely conflated authoritarianism, fascism, and communism.

It's an interesting doublethink that allows people to know that USSR and US and UK were allies in WW2 against the great evil of fascism, but now crypto-fascism is the better alternative to "Communism", and that the "American way" has always stood in contrast to socialism.

So now it's important for the Western media to say China has propsperous billionaires because of capitalist reforms, but the vast majority of people are living hand to mouth and have no political voice because of communist remnants. Ridiculous.

rediculous but it works, to the vast majority of the world, communism = totalitarianism. The power of the beourgious control of the learning institutions and mass media. That's why I support countries like Cuba, who try to protect the revolution, by taking the unpopular measure of suppressing certain "freedoms". It's like battling Rupert Murdoch with DIY zines.

[Ismail]

State capitalist.

For all those who say it's Fascist, read this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm and, for examples of American fascism (no, not Bush or whatever, it ends in the 50's) read this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

[Comrade_Scott]

Other (here's what . . .) state run capitalism to the T and boy are they good at it

[Crux]

China is not state capitalist. It is an emerging capitalist superpower with an authoritarian state desperatly trying to hold on, the growing bourguise, the economic crisis, the national struggles within the country and the worker's resistance makes china not as stable as it might seem.
check out: chinaworker.info