China, the model for the future....

[RadioRaheem84]

I am surprised that the nothing has really been said in the media about the overt practices of state repression by the Chinese state. In fact, with the exception of a few articles here and there, I am surprised that the media is so accepting of the new China.

Also, I have noticed that when the media does protest the repression by the Chinese state, the problem is never the reason for the repression, its always just the repression. They never mention that most of the protests citizens have against the Chinese state is due to the free market reforms that are leaving half the population in ruin.

Whenever China does something the Western Powers likes, i.e. reforming markets, granting corporations the right to do business in China, free trade, it's an upstanding nation that's rivaling the US. But when it represses its people for any reason that the media cannot deny, then it's somehow "Communist".

What would they do if the Chinese cease to call themselves Communists?

[Winter]

I have noticed the same thing. Why are they so accepting of the new China? Because they are good for business. I think it's pretty obvious that China is not a Communist country, but rather, a full blown police state which suppresses media, protesters and workers.

Hell, it's against the law to criticize a leader within the CCP! It's trully amazing how bad China has degenerated since the days of Mao. Many achievements that were accomplished have been removed long ago. The revisionist CCP may just want to give the label of 'Communist' a bad name. By taking up the title Communist and making bad actions that suppress rather than liberate the people, their goals seem to be to ruin the title of 'Communist' and hoping western countries associate that title with a brutal police state. I know I'm going off here and making far out claims, but revisionists do these sort of things, never put anything past them.

If they ever stop calling themselves Communists, you probably wouldn't even hear about the minor offences the Chinese government would commit because it is no longer an ugly police state but a freedom loving democracy. At least that's what the media would tell us.

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree. Whenever the Chinese ruling party gives up the Communist label, the media will totally negate the repression.

[Azurite]

I agree that the media is biased in it's coverage of China's state repression.

However, I feel that it's important to point out that the PRC's political repression existed long before the free market reforms.

A government that can't be held accountable to it's people can do whatever it wants. And in this case, it wants capitalist reformation.

[Hit The North]

I think it's pretty obvious that China is not a Communist country, but rather, a full blown police state which suppresses media, protesters and workers. And pretty obvious that China was never under the control of 'the people', never mind the working class.

[Winter]

And pretty obvious that China was never under the control of 'the people', never mind the working class.

At one time the CCP led the people from the terror of imperialism to a country where the vast majority of the people benefited. How can you make this claim? Have you ever done serious research on the subject?



These ( socio-economic policies ) included the creation of a cheap and fairly effective healthcare system, the expansion of elementary education in rural China, and affirmative action policies that promoted gender equality. Having grown up in rural China, I witnessed the important benefits that these policies had for the rural people. When the post-Mao regime under Ding Xiaoping reversed the Cultural Revolution policies on these issues, the systems and practices that had benefited the vast majority of China's rural people were allowed ( and, in some cases, pushed ) to disintegrate. In terms of health and education many of the rural poor became worse off than they had been during the Cultural Revolution. Similiarly, many of the gains made in achieving gender equality have been lost.


The above quote is from The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao. If you seriously want to learn the truth about the Mao era, I advise you to read this. It's really easy to accept revisionist history at face value and do no independent research, but as Socialists I believe we are obligated to find the truth.

[RadioRaheem84]

China today is lauded by the elites in the media as a major example of economic reform and social stability. Yes, they critique the repression but misrepresent it too. They think that China is suffocating democratic reforms but fail to mention that the people are protesting the economic reforms that are hindering democratic change in China. The land seizures, the sweatshops, the break-up of unions, the lack of good work. This is what the major protests are about in China. Not just the repression of the Falun Gong or other religious organizations, like the media portrays it.

In all truth, China seems to be the prime model for what the social planners in elite institutions want for the world; a corporate state.

[Azurite]

At one time the CCP led the people from the terror of imperialism to a country where the vast majority of the people benefited. How can you make this claim? Have you ever done serious research on the subject?

It isn't a question of what was done, it is more a question of who it was done by. Those changes all came from above, and so the people were not in control, just like Bob said.

And if you want to talk about what was done, then I'll admit that the CCP did modernise China and get the country back on it's feet. But the negatives far outweight the positives in my opinion. There is no and has never been any real degree of democracy in the PRC, not to mention that the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward were disasters on a massive scale.

[Winter]

It isn't a question of what was done, it is more a question of who it was done by. Those changes all came from above, and so the people were not in control, just like Bob said.

So long as their is a state, policies are going to be initiated from a central authority. That's just a fact. The CCP practiced democratic centralism. What you need to take into consideration is that the CCP knew what the people wanted and needed thanks to practicing the Mass Line. It was trully a government that served the vast majority of the population; the workers and peasants. Thus, by the way this system worked out, it was the people who made these decisions. The people cried out, the party delivered.


And if you want to talk about what was done, then I'll admit that the CCP did modernise China and get the country back on it's feet. But the negatives far outweight the positives in my opinion. There is no and has never been any real degree of democracy in the PRC, not to mention that the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward were disasters on a massive scale.

The Great leap forward: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm
The Cultural Revolution: The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao

[Azurite]

I didn't think anyone actually bought the "three years of natural disasters" story anymore (which is what the CCP claimed until the 80s).

Can you seriously claim that 15 million deaths were caused mostly by "bad weather and natural disasters" in the space of three years? And that this happened to coincide with widescale institutional and policy changes?

And for the record, I believe that it is immoral to kill one person to save two. Which isn't actually what happened, but it seems to be what you're pushing.

[Winter]

I didn't think anyone actually bought the "three years of natural disasters" story anymore (which is what the CCP claimed until the 80s).

Can you seriously claim that 15 million deaths were caused mostly by "bad weather and natural disasters" in the space of three years? And that this happened to coincide with widescale institutional and policy changes?

And for the record, I believe that it is immoral to kill one person to save two. Which isn't actually what happened, but it seems to be what you're pushing.

From The Battle for China's Past:



Scholars have made different estimates, ranging from 10 to 20 million deaths. These are estimates for many reasons. One is that there were no reliable demographic censuses to make possible an accurate figure. Second, it is hard to know whether some casualties during the Great Leap Forward were deaths by hunger or premature deaths due to hardship. Third, some estimates try to assess the "missing" population on the basis of normal death and birth rates and therefore may have included millions of those who might not have been born. In the words of Patnaik:

"Some scholars have used a very dubious method of arriving at grossly unrealistic and inflated "famine deaths" during this period ( 1959-61 ) by taking account not only of the higher crude death rate but also counting the "missing millions" as a result of the lower birth rate, as part of the toll. There is a great deal of difference between people who are already there, dying prematurely due to a sharp decline in nutritional status, and people born at all. The former can enter the statistics of famine deaths according to any sensible definition famine, but people who are not born at all are obviously in no position to die whether prematurely or otherwise"

Nowadays natural disasters such as floods and droughts are not considered a factor for the famine during the period. But in Barme an eyewitness account testifies that in 1960 there was the worst flood disaster in century in his area and "The water came right up to our kang. The hunger was too great. It was hell. The natural disasters added to the effect, and that's the truth.


Note, that I'm not saying the Great Leap forward had no negative effects. I just believe the figures have been increased due to elites wanting to demonize communists.

[Rawthentic]

The claim that the Cultural Revolution being a "disaster" is the same one that is heaped on to students in their high school and college textbooks. It is simply, a bourgeois lie.

The cultural revolution was a mass movement of millions of workers,peasants, intellectuals, and others in the struggle to uproot the capitalist roaders from their halls of power and keep China on the socialist road. These capitalist roaders did not care if China was on the socialist road, their aim was to build China into a "powerful country", and the policies and lines of these CCP leaders objectively led BACK to the old horrors. From the big character posters that called upon the corrupt anti-maoists, to the new mass organizations that were created, or the struggle meetings, the people rose up, CONSCIOUSLY, in the fight to continue socialism. As a side note, only 3% of CCP leaders were purged, so I dont consider that a huge purge by any standards. Former corrupt leaders and bureaucrats were given the opportunity to reform and serve the people better. I think thats a better method than Stalin's.

There were many objectives to the cultural revolution, mainly the elimination of the capitalist roaders from leadership and the bridging of the gap between mental and manual labor. This is why intellectuals and students were sent to factories to work and to the countryside with the peasants. This is why peasants and workers formed groups and associations to study communist theory and practice. How else could this be done?

When analyzing what class interests were at the fore in any given society, one needs to see a balance between both the superstructure (politics, line, theories) and base (relations of production, property relations). In China's case, before the capitalist seizure of power, both of these elements pointed to a socialist society. The ideology that was at the fore of china at this time (not any longer obviously) was that of the proletariat. Workers had a say, along with party cadre and administrators, in production and their workplace. The communes in China represented the transformation of China's countryside onto the socialist road (as opposed to the capitalist one with individual enterprises and landholders). Drug addiction was virtually ended, people became a part of huge mass organizations that carried out decisions within society, such as worker's and peasants associations, youth groups, etc. Society was radically different, and the masses held state power in their interests.

[Raúl Duke]

While I'm not sure about the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution does seemed to have been a failure. I mean, the revisionist/capitalist-roaders that they despise ended up being the majority/taking power of the CCP/China leading us to this present.
Maybe the "ultra-left" (something like 95% was revisionist to them) was right about how much of the party was revisionist...


When analyzing what class interests were at the fore in any given society, one needs to see a balance between both the superstructure (politics, line, theories) and base (relations of production, property relations). In China's case, before the capitalist seizure of power, both of these elements pointed to a socialist society.:blink: Unless you mean closely before the "takeover" from revisionists (which is still doubtful), China was (before the PRC and during the early PRC/Mao era) a mostly feudal nation which elements are, according to HM, directed towards a capitalist society (not a socialist one and especially not a communist one).
I suppose Mao Zedong thought couldn't change the course of history...

About the media; yes I've been noticing that similar treatment towards China. It actually dates back to Tienanmen Square. Western news reports did not mention that besides want of democratic reforms, the workers that joined them were more protesting about the free market reforms. The media also didn't report that they've sung the L'internationale, which is a socialist/communists/anarchist song.

[Rawthentic]

While I'm not sure about the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution does seemed to have been a failure. I mean, the revisionist/capitalist-roaders that they despise ended up being the majority/taking power of the CCP/China leading us to this present.
Maybe the "ultra-left" (something like 95% was revisionist to them) was right about how much of the party was revisionist...
Where does this come from? 95% of the CCP was not revisionist, that's ridiculous. There were a lot of them, and this is shown in the degree of struggle that the GPCR took.

Did it fail? Yes, and no. It failed in that, in the end, capitalist roaders (led by Deng Xiaoping) did seize power and lead China down the path it came to now. But communists gained a deeper understanding of the contradictions under socialism, and the need to have a "revolution with a revolution" (so to speak) in order to combat the bourgeoisie not only on the economic field, but also on the ideological field, which is how these capitalist roaders objectively represented the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This contribution by Mao is immortal.


Unless you mean closely before the "takeover" from revisionists (which is still doubtful), China was (before the PRC and during the early PRC/Mao era) a mostly feudal nation which elements are, according to HM, directed towards a capitalist society (not a socialist one and especially not a communist one).
I suppose Mao Zedong thought couldn't change the course of history...
I don't think we should be schematic and say that society follows one charted path, and that is from feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. Society is too complex to fit into such things. In general, you are correct, but there is more to it. Socialist china was a nation that had, for the most part eradicated the feudal elements that plagued it. When feudalism is eradicated (reflected in the land reform and creation of communes) capitalist relations begin to spring up, and there is a need to develop capitalist industry along with AND during the building of a socialist, planned economy. In the countryside, the peasants took the route of socialism, that is, communes and collectives. The capitalist road would have been individual land-holdings.

China was not a full-blown socialist society. But the nature of society is of course not simply determined by this, but by WHAT ROAD it is on. Was China on the socialist road or the capitalist road? Were its programs and policies and campaigns still continuing the construction of socialism? This was the basic premise of the Cultural Revolution: to defeat the leadership whose policies and programs led BACK on the PATH towards capitalism, and meant a defeat for the revolution and the masses.

I conclusion, China had elements both of a state-capitalist economy that was subordinate to the larger socialist one. It was absolutely necessary to develop the latter since, as you said, China never had the chance to develop the capitalist mode of production. But this was on an ever DECREASING scale, and its purpose was to serve the construction of socialism, not capitalism.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I am surprised that the nothing has really been said in the media


Are you really..