Revolution in china-against our own? [Archive]

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th November 2008, 23:06

Despite its numerous problems, China is a bureaucratic proletarian state. Capitalist property relations were overthrown in a popular revolution but it was a privileged bureaucracy, not the working class itself, which took power. People point to things like the sweat-shops and 'special economic zone' in China and say "that can't be socialism." They're right. These are elements of capitalism that are being reintroduced, continually undermining the proletarian state. But key heavy and high-tech industry, armament production, and key sections of the finance sector remain in the hands of the state. The remaining gains are what let China navigate through the East Asian Crisis of 97-98 and continue growing. The capitalist elements that have been introduced are what have led to the abolition of universal education and healthcare, "the iron rice bowl," etc.

Besides, there has been no counterrevolution in China. A state cannot simply switch hands and be used by whoever. Just as the working class cannot simply seize control of the capitalist state and use it for its own, the capitalists cannot simply seize control of a proletarian state and use it for their own either.

Opposition in China comes in the form of imperialist-backed fronts such as the "Free Tibet" movement and open threats over Taipei, but also in new communist groups, farmers movements and the countless workers' struggles that take place each year. So all opposition to/in China is neither good nor bad. It's not so black and while.

It is the task of genuine communists to defend the limited gains still left in China while promoting and supporting the just struggles of the working class.

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 23:08

They're not a true communist country, I don't think its unfair to say that.

That's a bit of an understatement.

China is a complete capitalist country at this point with fewer and fewer state interference that made it a state capitalilst country before the major capitalist reforms.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th November 2008, 23:24

There's no such thing as political dissent there.

Actually, there (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2002/China781.htm) is (http://wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/chin-m08.shtml) a lot (http://wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/chin-a08.shtml) of it (http://wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/chin-j15.shtml).

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 23:34

China is a complete capitalist country at this point This is factually incorrect. In 2001, state-owned and partly state-owned enterprises (shareholding corporations) accounted for 57 percent of the gross value of China’s industrial output which shows that the private sector still accounts for only a small share of industrial output despite the introduction of market reforms and extensive foreign investment in China, according to the 2002 edition of the China Statistical Yearbook. The state sector also encompasses industries which are of key importance for any economy, including energy production, finance, as well as the armaments industry, and so even the figure mentioned above does not fully convey the extent to which the Chinese economy is still based on state ownership. Even in the case of firms were are owned by private individuals, their shareholder rights only extend to the ability to derive profits in the form of share divideneds, they are not able to influence how firms are managed or control the composition of the managerial board, and the executives of major firms often also hold positions of importance within the local party branch which allows the government to maintain control over how firms operate. The government also owns all of the land which has prevented the emergence of a new gentry in the countryside, and almost all of China's private savings are invested in four large commercial banks, all of which are owned by the government. The value of China's national currency (the renminbi) is set by the goverment which has allowed China to increase export revenue for the duration of the reform period, and the currency is not freely available on international markets, which is one of the factors which allowed the Chinese economy to withstand the Asian financial crisis, when other regional economies went into recession due to the pressure.

The level of ignorance concerning China is truly shocking.

China: So communist that the Hong Kong right sucks it off on a daily basis. Excuse me? The party with the most electoral success in Hong Kong, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, otherwise known as the DAB, is also one of the most pro-Beijing parties, so obviously the residents of Hong Kong are not opposed to retaining close links with China and cultivating economic ties and actually want to move closer to China, not further away. This had nothing to do with whether China is socialist or not, because the majority of Hong Kong residents also looked favorably towards China during the 1960s, when we were living under colonialism.

But society is tightly controlled in China. There's no such thing as political dissent there
What do you know? Of course there is political dissent in China, and it's unclear why you would assume otherwise given that historically, even when people are living under dictatorship there is always at least some form of dissent. Peasants regularly hold demonstrations against land seizures, and workers are beginning to organize underground trade unions to fight for their rights in workplaces across the country. In Hong Kong, there is regular public discussion over contentious political issues such as the recent milk scandal, and in previous years there have also been protest marches demanding greater democracy, which have been allowed to take place with absolutely no intervention from the central government. The problem with dissent in China is that it is often led by groups and individuals who want to undermine the territorial unity of the Chinese state, as in the case of the anti-Han pogroms which took place in Tibet and other provinces in the west of China earlier this year, or otherwise expose China to imperialist hegemony.

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 23:37

This is factually incorrect. In 2001, state-owned and partly state-owned enterprises (shareholding corporations) accounted for 57 percent of the gross value of China’s industrial output which shows that the private sector still accounts for only a small share of

The level of ignorance concerning China is truly shocking.

Much of the state-owned enterprises is on paper only. The Chinese economy is in fact highly privatized.

Of course there is still some state involvement, heck the USA the grand khan of capitalism has plenty of state interference in the economy as seen most recently with the corporate takeover/bailouts.

Still doesn't stop us from calling it a capitalist however.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 23:52

Much of the state-owned enterprises is on paper only. The Chinese economy is in fact highly privatized.

You have no idea what you're talking about - if you're going to make an assertion like that you have to provide some evidence, preferably in the form of references to academic studies or official government reports on the state of the Chinese economy, and not just expect people to believe you. I've supported my points by directing you to a source which you can use to check my facts, now provide a source or admit you were making an assertion.

Of course there is still some state involvement

This is irrelevant - you asserted that China is now a "complete" capitalist country. Either back that assertion up, or be quiet.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th November 2008, 23:59

Much of the state-owned enterprises is on paper only. The Chinese economy is in fact highly privatized.

Of course there is still some state involvement, heck the USA the grand khan of capitalism has plenty of state interference in the economy as seen most recently with the corporate takeover/bailouts.

Still doesn't stop us from calling it a capitalist however.

A large section of industry is still in the hands of the state, and no, that's not just "on paper." But that's not the deciding detail. Key industry (heavy, hi-tech, armaments) and finance remains in the hands of the state, and importantly, it got to be that way through a revolution. It's a completely different situation from the U.S.

Vanguard1917

21st November 2008, 00:20

State ownership of parts of the economy does not equal workers' control; the Stalinite idea that it does is alien to the Marxist view, upheld by Marxists like Engels and Lenin. I am not sure what is causing otherwise intelligent members like NHIA and Bobkindles to reach immensely flawed conclusions here, but to suggest that China possesses any kind of proletarian state is nonsensical in all aspects.

The state which represses and degrades the Chinese people should, under the leadership of the Chinese working class, be smashed to pieces. Genuine socialists look forward to the prospect of the Chinese people taking charge of their own destinies.

BobKKKindle$

21st November 2008, 00:26

I am not sure what is causing otherwise intelligent members like NHIA and Bobkindles

I never suggested that state ownership is the same as workers control, or that China is a socialist state, so I don't see why you are assuming that I do hold this kind of position. I just wanted to correct the misconception that China is a "complete" (i.e. with as little government intervention as is feasibly possible for a modern capitalist economy and no elements of socialism at all) capitalist economy, which is what members in this thread have been suggesting. All of my comments so far in this thread have been objective factual statements - I have not offered my opinion on whether China is capitalist/socialist etc.

Vanguard1917

21st November 2008, 00:29

I never suggested that state ownership is the same as workers control, or that China is a socialist state, so I don't see why you are assuming that I do hold this kind of position.

I assumed from your arguments and the arguments you've made in other threads (about N Korea, for example) that that's the direction in which you were heading - i.e. China = workers' state.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 00:31

State ownership of parts of the economy does not equal workers' control;

Not alone it doesn't. No one here argued that. No one here argued that there was workers control in China either.

In fact, I argued that a bureaucratic caste holds the reigns of the proletarian state (which was created out of a mass revolution) in China.

The argument that a proletarian state can somehow be "reformed" into a capitalist state is unmaterialist, and hence "alien to the Marxist view, upheld by Marxists like Engels and Lenin."

As Trotsky said, such an argument is simply rolling the film of reformism in reverse.

Vanguard1917

21st November 2008, 00:59

Not alone it doesn't. No one here argued that. No one here argued that there was workers control in China either.

In fact, I argued that a bureaucratic caste holds the reigns of the proletarian state (which was created out of a mass revolution) in China.

Your argument is that nationalised property represents progress from the POV of the working class. As such, the social formation in China ix progressive in comparison with the West, since aspects of the economy are under state control. From the perspective of Marxism, though, this is simply untrue. There is nothing inherently progressive about nationalisation. It's progressive only insofar as it helps accomplish the historical aims of the working class - increasing productivity and socialising labour.

And the idea that the Chinese state should be defended and that attacks against it by the Chinese people should be resisted (since its a proletarian state), has incredibly conservative implications, for obvious reasons.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 01:15

Your argument is that nationalised property represents progress from the POV of the working class. As such, the social formation in China ix progressive in comparison with the West, since aspects of the economy are under state control. From the perspective of Marxism, though, this is simply untrue. There is nothing inherently progressive about nationalisation. It's progressive only insofar as it helps accomplish the historical aims of the working class - increasing productivity and socialising labour.

Your ignoring what I said. State property is not "progressive" in the abstract. It's obvious that there's nothing inherently "progressive" about the U.S. nationalizing a railroad company. But, when property is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class and put under the control of a proletarian state born out of a revolution however it is a different story.

Of course it's not really a question of what's "progressive" and what's "conservative," but a question of the interests of the international proletariat, including the destruction of imperialism and capitalism.

And the idea that the Chinese state should be defended and that attacks against it by the Chinese people should be resisted (since its a proletarian state), has incredibly conservative implications, for obvious reasons.

You're either misunderstanding or misconstruing my arguments.

Recognizing that China is a bureaucratized proletarian state doesn't mean the bureaucracy should be defended against the Chinese "people." I never said that. Communists support the sweeping away of the bureaucracy by the Chinese workers. At the same time, we defend China against imperialism.

We also recognize that just as material conditions gave rise to the bureaucracy in China, it will take a change in the material conditions to get rid of it. Key to ousting the bureaucracy in China is the extension of the revolution to the rest of Asia, especially Japan, the most powerful imperialist country in the region.

PostAnarchy

21st November 2008, 01:20

PostAnarchy

21st November 2008, 01:24

I just wanted to correct the misconception that China is a "complete" (i.e. with as little government intervention as is feasibly possible for a modern capitalist economy and no elements of socialism at all) capitalist economy, .

Here is where we differ - I do not believe that modern capitalist countries have a minimal amount of government interference, I believe they have massive amounts of government/state interference in the economy. Again, it would take someone sleeping under a rock not to see this in light of recent events. The old laissez-faire little to no gov. interference is antiquated and has been pretty much dormant since the Great Depression. Now we have a huge state sector and gov. involvement in the economy, the military-industrial complex being a prime example of this.

Furthermore, as Vanguard point out: state ownership ==// workers control.

PostAnarchy

21st November 2008, 01:32

if you're going to make an assertion like that you have to provide some evidence, preferably in the form of references to academic studies or official government reports on the state of the Chinese economy, and not just expect people to believe you. I've supported my points by directing you to a source which you can use to check my facts, now provide a source or admit you were making an assertion.

CHINA: a congress of capitalists

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/15cChina.html

This is from a communist non-anarchist source. As far as "official" government (state) sources go...well as you can imagine they tend to be very propagandistic in service of , you guessed it, the state.

I might note howeve that the view of China being capitalist or state capitalist is pretty widespread if not commonplace among many revlefters so I don't see why you're taking my position with such disdain and surprise:

China is a capitalist state in which a certain portion is still owned by the state, so it is "state-ist" or "state-capitalist" in that respect, but there is certainly no workers' state (degenerated or otherwise) involved anymore.

I agree here. I would typify China as being an "authoritarian state-capitalist" society ("state-capitalism" should not be confused here with bullocks theories about the Soviet Union, but read as a capitalist society with a bourgeoisie with heavy state intervention). It's certainly been seen by the western bourgeoisies as an example and possible alternative for neoliberalism.

since nationalization is IMO not a socialist measure I say China is fully capitalist (but nationalization can have socialist intentions, hence the word socialist in the "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics"; but in China this clearly isn't the case). Nationalization is also a capitalist measure. What else are we seeing during periods of war and crisis? To me, only full workers' control over production is socialist in character and form.

Vanguard1917

21st November 2008, 01:37

Your ignoring what I said. State property is not "progressive" in the abstract. It's obvious that there's nothing inherently "progressive" about the U.S. nationalizing a railroad company. But, when property is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class and put under the control of a proletarian state born out of a revolution however it is a different story.

But then you have to explain how China possesses a workers' state. If workers do not control the state, and thus have no power over the state, in what sense is it a workers' state? You will argue nationalisation makes it a workers state. But then we are back to where we started, since we have already established that nationalisation is not in itself progressive.

The success of a workers' revolution depends first of all on workers' establishing their control over the state apparatus. Without this requirement, any talk of defending the revolution or furthering its aims is impossible.

Like Lenin put it in 1918:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'

Of course it's not really a question of what's "progressive" and what's "conservative," but a question of the interests of the international proletariat, including the destruction of imperialism and capitalism.

And as the experience of the Soviet Union showed, it is possible to destroy capitalism without replacing it with a more advanced way of organising society - workers control and regulation. The task of expropriating the bourgeoisie is a relatively straightforward one. As Lenin emphasised over and again, its establishing the rule of the working class which is the real challenge in moving towards a socialist society.

At the same time, we defend China against imperialism.

Absolutely. I oppose imperialist interference into China, just as i oppose imperialist intervention into, say, Iran. That doesn't mean i have any sympathy for the regimes of either. I support the Chinese (and Iranian) working class in all its struggles against the reactionary Chinese state.

BobKKKindle$

21st November 2008, 01:39

Here is where we differNo, it is obvious that all modern capitalist states incorporate at least some form of state intervention during the age of imperialism, but there are still clear differences between states in terms of the importance of the government as a component of the economy in relation to the private sector. In Asia, the countries where government intervention was lacking were more susceptible to the financial crisis which swept across the region in 1997. Thailand was one of the most "open" countries and consequently the Bhat underwent a dramatic devaluation, the stockmarket index fell by around seventy percent, and for several years after the crisis large numbers of workers were being sent back to their villages as companies cut back on production, and the workers who were still being employed faced attacks on the gains they had won during the period of rapid economic expansion before the crisis hit. By contrast, China was and still is one of the most state-orientated countries, and so China was able to make its way through the crisis with minimal negative impacts on the state of the economy. This clearly indicates that there are key differences between economies, and these differences have an impact of the real world in that greater state intervention protects workers from economic crises, and consequently even if we view China as capitalist, communists should still fight against further market reforms which will take away the regulations and lead to the privatization of state assets.

might note howeve that the view of China being capitalist or state capitalist is pretty widespreadFirstly, just because an opinion happens to be widespread, it doesn't mean that opinion is automatically right. There are still several socialist organizations which defend China on the grounds that China is a workers state. More importantly, however, I never suggested that China was not capitalist and this is my opinion on the matter, but I reject the idea that market reforms in China have gone so far that we can now see China as a capitalist economy with the same degree of state involvement as most other industrialized states. The state is more important in the Chinese economy than in most other economies around the world including countries which are in the same region as China or at the same stage of economic development, and as noted above, the forms of state intervention which remain are generally progressive and should be defended, in the same way that socialists living in imperialist countries fight for public services to remain nationalized instead of being sold off to private investors, and socialists living in neo-colonial countries demand the nationalization of foreign property to aid economic development, even if nationalization does not result in workers control.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 02:46

Vanguard +1

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Please don't make one-line posts like this. Read our guidelines.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 02:57

But then you have to explain how China possesses a workers' state. If workers do not control the state, and thus have no power over the state, in what sense is it a workers' state? You will argue nationalisation makes it a workers state. But then we are back to where we started, since we have already established that nationalisation is not in itself progressive.

I've already explained it, in this thread and others.

I'm not going to play games or run around in circles here. If you're interested in my arguments, they've been laid out.

A popular revolution smashed the capitalist state. A proletarian state (albeit one under the control of a privileged bureaucracy and modeled on the bureaucratized proletarian state in the USSR) was formed, the capitalist class was expropriated and its property was taken into public ownership, a planned economy was instituted, and a monopoly on foreign trade was established.

Despite the fact that many of the gains have been eroded as the bureaucracy continues to allow the introduction capitalist elements to the economy, the proletarian state that was born of the 1949 revolution has not been destroyed. There has been no counterrevolution in China.

Like Lenin put it in 1918:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass on to a workers' regulation of production.'

Yep, that's true. It doesn't go against my argument though. China is not socialist, nor is there workers control. But that doesn't mean the state in China is a capitalist state. It's a proletarian state in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. It can be compared to a capitalist state in the hands of a section of the military officer caste or a workers' union in the hands of a pro-boss bureaucracy.

And as the experience of the Soviet Union showed, it is possible to destroy capitalism without replacing it with a more advanced way of organising society - workers control and regulation. The task of expropriating the bourgeoisie is a relatively straightforward one. As Lenin emphasised over and again, its establishing the rule of the working class which is the real challenge in moving towards a socialist society.

I agree with your words here.. though obviously not how you connect this to your other arguments.

The existence of bureaucratized proletarian states can serve to weaken world imperialism. The destruction of imperialism is a prerequisite for world socialism.

Further, the proletariat in China doesn't have to smash the state, it simply has to seize control of it.

redguard2009

21st November 2008, 03:44

Your argument is that nationalised property represents progress from the POV of the working class.

Did you even bother reading any of his posts, or did you go into an animal rage after reading the first 3 or 4 words?

Bob said nothing whatsoever about China being progressive, socialistic or a "worker's state", deformed or not. A claim was made by another member that China was "completely capitalist" and no longer "state capitalist" and Bobkindles simply corrected him by informing him that China still in infact highly "state capitalist" in that the government directly or indirectly controls over half the economy.

We also recognize that just as material conditions gave rise to the bureaucracy in China, it will take a change in the material conditions to get rid of it.

Every time I turn my head there's one communist or another coming up with yet another reason why the "material conditions that make revolution possible" don't exist. Why do the material conditions present in CHina have to change in order to make a re-revolution of Chinese society possible? What material changes in Chinese society during the 1950s and 1960s resulted in the beauraucratization of the Chinese state that we know today?

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st November 2008, 04:19

Every time I turn my head there's one communist or another coming up with yet another reason why the "material conditions that make revolution possible" don't exist.

Nope, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is basically what Marx said years ago: Men make history, but not in the conditions of their choosing.

Bureaucracies don't arise and take power because one faction looses a fight in a ruling party, someone dies, etc. And they won't be thrown out of power because of those sorts of things either.

What material changes in Chinese society during the 1950s and 1960s resulted in the beauraucratization of the Chinese state that we know today?

The Chinese state was born bureaucratic. Read my earlier posts, I discussed this question in detail.

Foxtrot

21st November 2008, 05:24

apologies for being incorrect, i should have made the question clearer.

ckaihatsu

21st November 2008, 05:27

Here is where we differ - I do not believe that modern capitalist countries have a minimal amount of government interference, I believe they have massive amounts of government/state interference in the economy. Again, it would take someone sleeping under a rock not to see this in light of recent events. The old laissez-faire little to no gov. interference is antiquated and has been pretty much dormant since the Great Depression. Now we have a huge state sector and gov. involvement in the economy, the military-industrial complex being a prime example of this.

Furthermore, as Vanguard point out: state ownership ==// workers control.

Of course there is still some state involvement, heck the USA the grand khan of capitalism has plenty of state interference in the economy as seen most recently with the corporate takeover/bailouts.

The funny thing about government intervention into a market-based economy is that it only works if the intervention serves to actually make its national industries *profitable*.

These posts are both very *dated* and almost sound propagandistic in light of current events. Since there's no need for massive accumulations of capital in order to start up large industrial concerns, it doesn't matter anymore whose vaults are bigger.

Note that Wall Street *turned down* the $700 billion+ of free government money because it actually wouldn't do *jack shit* since there are no *markets* anymore for financial goods, like mortgage-backed securities. We're in a classic case of overproduction, only this time it's an oversupply of *finance* in relation to the markets that can make use of it.

These gargantuan numbers being thrown around serve as political propaganda more than anything else. By the numbers alone the U.S. is FUCKED compared to the trade and credit surplus that China has, in terms of U.S. Treasury securities.

However, by the yardstick of capitalist accumulation -- which we as members of the proletariat have no personal interest in -- the U.S. and China are now joined at the hip because China depends on consumer purchases from the U.S. market, backed by ballooning U.S. debt, while the U.S. depends on cheap, hyper-exploited labor in China to make those consumer products.

In the press these two act like petulant children -- I'm reminded of the movie Stepbrothers which illustrates the relationship perfectly (and is a very funny comedy if you like stupid-style humor).

Forget the superpowers of the 20th century -- we need a new term, like megapower, to describe the symbiotic double-power that comprises the U.S.-China economy.

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Kwisatz Haderach

21st November 2008, 06:23

In fact, I argued that a bureaucratic caste holds the reigns of the proletarian state (which was created out of a mass revolution) in China.

The argument that a proletarian state can somehow be "reformed" into a capitalist state is unmaterialist, and hence "alien to the Marxist view, upheld by Marxists like Engels and Lenin."

As Trotsky said, such an argument is simply rolling the film of reformism in reverse.
How so? It is relatively simple and straightforward for a bureaucratic ruling caste to turn itself into a bourgeois ruling class. All they have to do is sell state assets to themselves at rock-bottom prices. We've seen it happen in Russia, and to a large extent it has also happened in China.

The fact that no spectacular, visible event has taken place in China to mark the transition to capitalism means little. The transition between modes of production is not always marked by sudden, spectacular, newsworthy events. Consider, for instance, the transition between feudalism and capitalism in Northern Europe. When exactly was the Danish feudal state overthrown by the bourgeoisie? I don't know - but that doesn't mean it was never actually overthrown.

And a reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is not theoretically impossible; it is merely extremely unlikely to happen in practice under present conditions. If, on the other hand, capitalism existed in a single country surrounded by a socialist world, it would be very much possible for the bourgeoisie in that country to give up power peacefully rather than fight an unwinnable war that would likely result in their death.

Yep, that's true. It doesn't go against my argument though. China is not socialist, nor is there workers control. But that doesn't mean the state in China is a capitalist state. It's a proletarian state in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. It can be compared to a capitalist state in the hands of a section of the military officer caste or a workers' union in the hands of a pro-boss bureaucracy.
Please explain what fundamental differences there are between the current Chinese state and an average capitalist state. The existence of nationalized industries alone is not a fundamental difference. Many capitalist economies have large public sectors as well.

21st November 2008, 06:30

I would like to add the CWI discussion into this, for some background reading:

China’s future? (http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/china.html) (Socialism Today issue 108, April 2007 by Will Hutton)
China’s capitalist counter-revolution (http://www.socialismtoday.org/114/china.html) (Socialism Today issues 114, December 2007/January 2008 by Vincent Kolo)
The character of the Chinese state (http://www.socialismtoday.org/122/china.html) (Socialism Today issue 122, October 2008 by Lynn Walsh)
China’s hybrid economy (http://www.socialismtoday.org/122/hybrid.html) (Socialism Today issue 122, October 2008 by Lynn Walsh)

I haven't fully made up my mind on the matter as of yet, but both sides (Vincent Kolo argueing that China has fully turned capitalist versus the international secretariat of the CWI arguing it is still in transition) make valid points. I'm inclining to agree with the IS that what is needed now is a combination of a political and social revolution to oust both the bureaucratic dictatorship and surpress the rising bourgeoisie.

Vanguard1917

21st November 2008, 13:30

A popular revolution smashed the capitalist state. A proletarian state (albeit one under the control of a privileged bureaucracy and modeled on the bureaucratized proletarian state in the USSR) was formed, the capitalist class was expropriated and its property was taken into public ownership, a planned economy was instituted, and a monopoly on foreign trade was established.

None of this is necessarily indicative of workers' control (i.e. the existence of a workers' state, of a proletarian dictatorship, of workers' power), except for planning of the economy (regulation), which did not exist in Stalinist societies, and can only exist through the conscious decision-making of the working class.

You have failed to show why the Chinese state is a proletarian state. We have already agreed that nationalised property is not in itself a progressive policy from the POV of the working class. State ownership of sectors of the economy does not on its own signify a workers' state.

'...of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism.' (Engels)

Yep, that's true.

But it's not true from your POV. Lenin is arguing that the only way that the revolution can be defended is through workers' control and regulation. You, on the other hand, believe that the proletarian state can be preserved - in the case of Russia, for almost 70 years! - in the total absence of workers' control. That is alien to Lenin's view.

Yehuda Stern

21st November 2008, 15:36

Nothing about China is "my own," so yes, I think "we" should.

Wanted Man

21st November 2008, 15:51

What seems to exist in China is some sort of 'state capitalism', although I'm not sure if it's the right term. The CPC claim that this is just an 'interim stage', comparable to the NEP in the early Soviet Union. But in China's case, it appears that the capitalists have gotten a significant grip on the country. Also, instead of acting as the vanguard party of the working class, the CPC allow the bosses to pursue their political and economic interests, including privatisations, the growing gap between lower and higher incomes, the revival of nationalism, etc.

It may be true that this is just an 'interim stage' and that they intend to move on to actual socialism 'when the time is right' (when?). But the CPC leadership (those who still represent proletarian interests, if any exist) will not be able to impose this on their own, and are probably not even willing to do so. The interests of the capitalist class are too strong. Only class struggle from the Chinese working class can accomplish this.

redguard2009

21st November 2008, 16:14

It may be true that this is just an 'interim stage' and that they intend to move on to actual socialism 'when the time is right' (when?). But the CPC leadership (those who still represent proletarian interests, if any exist) will not be able to impose this on their own, and are probably not even willing to do so. The interests of the capitalist class are too strong. Only class struggle from the Chinese working class can accomplish this.

Agreed. I don't buy for one second the CPC's claims that they remain adherent to "socialism" and that the past 30+ years of increasing pro-capitalsit reforms in government and business sectors is simply a form of "industrialization" (the CPC's official stance is that once China becomes developed enough, they will remove all pro-capitalist reform and re-institute socialism). Collectivization, introduced during the 1950s after the end of the Civil war, have been completely abolished. Private-sector capitalism has been on the rise for decades.

Probably the main factor in leading many to believe (including myself) that China is "state capitalist" rather than simply "capitalist" is the extraordinary control that the Chinese government flexes over its society. At the very least, the CPC has given sections of the corporate sector nearly unlimited flexibility in developing private businesses, and there is a lot of indication that the Chinese state is highly invested in the private sector. The Chinese economy operates under an "enforced market" as opposed to a "free market". However, this "enforcement" has in recent years been rolled back, officially to allow for "more efficiency". So my stance is that China is in the transitional period from state-controlled/moderated capitalism to free market capitalism.

Os Cangaceiros

21st November 2008, 16:21

I don't think that any popular, working class revolution could ever be against "our own", for reasons that should be obvious.

PostAnarchy

21st November 2008, 19:37

Private-sector capitalism has been on the rise for decades.

Probably the main factor in leading many to believe (including myself) that China is "state capitalist" rather than simply "capitalist" is the extraordinary control that the Chinese government flexes over its society. At the very least, the CPC has given sections of the corporate sector nearly unlimited flexibility in developing private businesses, and there is a lot of indication that the Chinese state is highly invested in the private sector. The Chinese economy operates under an "enforced market" as opposed to a "free market". However, this "enforcement" has in recent years been rolled back, officially to allow for "more efficiency". So my stance is that China is in the transitional period from state-controlled/moderated capitalism to free market capitalism.

This is exactly my POV on China, thank you for providing further clarification on the process of China turning from state capitalist to free market capitalism.

Nothing Human Is Alien

22nd November 2008, 00:01

How so? It is relatively simple and straightforward for a bureaucratic ruling caste to turn itself into a bourgeois ruling class. All they have to do is sell state assets to themselves at rock-bottom prices. We've seen it happen in Russia, and to a large extent it has also happened in China.

The fact that no spectacular, visible event has taken place in China to mark the transition to capitalism means little. The transition between modes of production is not always marked by sudden, spectacular, newsworthy events. Consider, for instance, the transition between feudalism and capitalism in Northern Europe. When exactly was the Danish feudal state overthrown by the bourgeoisie? I don't know - but that doesn't mean it was never actually overthrown.Just because you don't know when it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And no, that's not what "we've seen happen" in "Russia" (actually the USSR, which was made up of 15 separate republics).

"While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

"The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to 'peacefully coexist' with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany." - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)

Capitalists states collapse at times as well. When they do, they can either be rebuilt or swept aside and replaced by proletarian states.

The restoration of capitalism, everywhere it has occurred, has brought with it a massive fall in living standards for the majority of the population. Unemployment and homelessness skyrocketed, social security and infrastructure crumbled, and in many cases, life expectancy has even fallen dramatically. No such thing has happened in China, nor has the state created out of the 1949 revolution been overthrown.

And a reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is not theoretically impossible;Yes, it is impossible.

“The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." - Karl Marx

To say otherwise is to misunderstand the role of the state; i.e. an institution of organized violence used by a ruling class to defend its rule and the forms of property that its rule is based on and to repress the classes it rules over.

Just as the workers cannot seize control of a capitalist state and use it for their own ends, the capitalists cannot seize control of a proletarian state and use it for their own ends.

I'm inclining to agree with the IS that what is needed now is a combination of a political and social revolution to oust both the bureaucratic dictatorship and surpress the rising bourgeoisie.But the existing state is still capable of being used to suppress the emerging bourgeoisie, it's just not being used that way (usually).

"August 7 - Zero. Absolute zilch. That’s what big time private equity group Carlyle ended up getting when they attempted to take over a state-owned Chinese manufacturer. The final defeat for the U.S.-based Carlyle Group was announced on July 23. Carlyle and Chinese state-owned Xugong Construction Machinery announced that the original takeover deal signed in October 2005 had now expired. China’s Communist Party regulators had rejected the sell-off." - http://220.233.218.73/Xugong.html

What's needed is for the working class to sweep away the bureaucracy, take control of the state, and expropriate the exploiters on the mainland and in Hong Kong.

We have already agreed that nationalised property is not in itself a progressive policy from the POV of the working class. State ownership of sectors of the economy does not on its own signify a workers' state.

'...of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism.' (Engels)You're complete ignoring my arguments only to fabricate your own to attack. No one is saying that nationalized property = a proletarian state.

See my earlier post:

"A popular revolution smashed the capitalist state. A proletarian state (albeit one under the control of a privileged bureaucracy and modeled on the bureaucratized proletarian state in the USSR) was formed, the capitalist class was expropriated and its property was taken into public ownership, a planned economy was instituted, and a monopoly on foreign trade was established."

The formation of a proletarian state requires (1) an anti-capitalist revolution that leads to: (2) nationalization of key industry and finance, (3) putting foreign trade under state control, (4) institution of a planned economy.

You have failed to show why the Chinese state is a proletarian state. Actually, you just fail to understand or accept my arguments.

"China is not socialist, nor is there workers control. But that doesn't mean the state in China is a capitalist state. It's a proletarian state in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. It can be compared to a capitalist state in the hands of a section of the military officer caste or a workers' union in the hands of a pro-boss bureaucracy."

But it's not true from your POV. Lenin is arguing that the only way that the revolution can be defended is through workers' control and regulation. You, on the other hand, believe that the proletarian state can be preserved - in the case of Russia, for almost 70 years! - in the total absence of workers' control. That is alien to Lenin's view.It is the only way it can be effectively defended.. which is why I and the party I belong to continually point out that the extension of the world revolution is the only way to successfully defend the existing proletarian states. We point out that the bureaucracy undermines the proletarian state itself and that if it is not ousted, the bureaucratized proletarian state will eventually be overthrown or collapse from its own contradictions. None of this prevents us from unconditionally defending proletarian states from imperialism.. or causes us to affix some sort of arbitrary "time limit" on the number of years a proletarian state can exist in isolation. As you pointed out yourself, the USSR existed for several decades. Theory must be based on reality; not the other way around.

Private-sector capitalism has been on the rise for decades.

Probably the main factor in leading many to believe (including myself) that China is "state capitalist" rather than simply "capitalist" is the extraordinary control that the Chinese government flexes over its society. At the very least, the CPC has given sections of the corporate sector nearly unlimited flexibility in developing private businesses, and there is a lot of indication that the Chinese state is highly invested in the private sector. The Chinese economy operates under an "enforced market" as opposed to a "free market". However, this "enforcement" has in recent years been rolled back, officially to allow for "more efficiency". So my stance is that China is in the transitional period from state-controlled/moderated capitalism to free market capitalism.Presumably, you agree that a proletarian state was created out of the 1949 revolution. Perhaps you could tell us when that state was destroyed and replaced with a capitalist one?

Vanguard1917

23rd November 2008, 20:23

You're complete ignoring my arguments only to fabricate your own to attack. No one is saying that nationalized property = a proletarian state.

See my earlier post:

"A popular revolution smashed the capitalist state. A proletarian state (albeit one under the control of a privileged bureaucracy and modeled on the bureaucratized proletarian state in the USSR) was formed, the capitalist class was expropriated and its property was taken into public ownership, a planned economy was instituted, and a monopoly on foreign trade was established."

The formation of a proletarian state requires (1) an anti-capitalist revolution that leads to: (2) nationalization of key industry and finance, (3) putting foreign trade under state control, (4) institution of a planned economy.

And, as i pointed out, nationalisation, state monopoly over foreign trade, and the expropriation of the bourgeoisie do not necessarily mean that the working class has established its social power. In order for it to do so, the working class needs state control, something which it did not have in Stalinist societies.

Again, you are failing to address this central flaw in your thesis. From the Marxist perspective, a working class revolution can only be sucessful if the working class establishes its control over society, political (through state power) and economic (through workers' regulation of the economy).

From your perspective, workers' control is not necessary to preserve workers' power (i.e. the proletarian state) - the proletarian state can continue to exist for as long as 7 decades in the total absence of workers' control.

China is not socialist, nor is there workers control. But that doesn't mean the state in China is a capitalist state.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that it isn't.

Because a state is not capitalist doesn't mean it's necessarily and automatically 'proletarian'. A state doesn't come under the control of the working class by default. It takes a conscious and active revolutionary struggle on the part of the working class - a 'ruthless crusade', to quote Lenin, in order to establish workers' control and thus defend the revolution, since without workers' control the revolution cannot be defended and the historical aims of the working class cannot be accomplished.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd November 2008, 20:54

I guess I have to repeat myself again: bureaucratized proletarian state ≠ workers' power.

A union is still a workers' organization at base even when its under the control of union bureaucrats. A capitalist state is still a capitalist state even when it is controlled by a section of the officer caste of the military.

Bureaucratized proletarian states are proletarian states because of their nature, their origins and the nature of the property forms they (nominally) defend.

Revy

23rd November 2008, 21:08

It's an obvious fact that the working class faces the same problems in China as they do everywhere else. What exists in China is capitalism. Save for the fact it goes around using words like communism and socialism, there would be no debate on this.

Wen Jia-bao who is popular in China, can only be called a social democrat, like Gorbachev. The workers must break with the Communist Party because it is dominated by the bourgeoisie and will violently and brutally repress them if they criticize the facade (Tiananmen Square protests).

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd November 2008, 21:19

Save for the fact it goes around using words like communism and socialism, there would be no debate on this.

No, it has nothing to do with what the bureaucrats call themselves. It has to do with the origins and nature of the state in China. Communists don't ignore that just because of "obvious facts" (which are really general assumptions, based on zero investigation or study of material conditions or history).

Of course there is capitalist penetration in China. The same thing exists in Viet Nam and Laos, and to a much lesser extent north Korea and Cuba. How about the NEP? It doesn't change the nature or origins of the state or the nature of the property relations it was set up to defend.

Pogue

23rd November 2008, 21:28

Pogue

23rd November 2008, 21:29

And capitalists can seize control of China's state because it was always a state controlled by a ruling class. Throughout its history China has always been udner the control of a ruling class.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd November 2008, 21:40

The state in the U.S. is "controlled by a ruling class." Does that mean workers can take control of it? If so, communist theory, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and historical materialism are all down the drain.. on the basis of your assertions and nothing else, of course.

Union bureaucrats abandoned class struggle. That doesn't mean we don't defend unions as organizations, while calling for the rank-and-file to organize independently of the bureaucracy and reclaim them.

Communists defend gains that are already won as a necessary part of the fight to move forward. We fight against imperialism, the main enemy of humanity and obstacle to world revolution.

So yes, we defend bureaucratic proletarian states, of which China is one. There are capitalists, but there is no capitalist ruling class in China. The state is run by a privileged bureaucratic caste.

What does this mean in practice?

We unconditionally defend China from imperialist attack and provocations. We support the working class of China against the bureaucracy. We call for the working class to rise up and seize control of the Chinese state. While doing all of this we recognize and point out that the best way to weaken the bureaucracy, embolden the working class, defend the existing gains and assure future victory is to extend the revolution to the rest of Asia, especially imperialist Japan, and we fight for exactly that.

Matty_UK

23rd November 2008, 21:47

The conditions in China are really interesting, and I think a revolutionary situation may be just around the corner.

There exists MASSIVE resentment in China against the corruption and arrogance of the CCP. And they really are snobby-when I was teaching at a Chinese middle school, the head of English whose husband is a party member gave me a talking to because most of my friends were working class people who worked in breweries, customer service, and a few english teachers from peasant families, telling me that these are "bad people," and kept trying to introduce me to tedious, well behaved people from rich families who I never befriended. And her daughter, who I taught, was an arrogant, stuck-up, know-it-all pain in the ass too.
She also took us to dinner with a local Communist Party official, and the only word I could describe this official with is bourgeois. She treated the teenage waitress with utmost contempt and scorn, scolding her for her appearance and completely ignoring her as she brought food to the table.

The resentment that exists towards them is increasingly spilling over dramatically. Someone from the Beijing ministry of transportation grabbed the neck of a teenage girl in a Shenzhen restaurant, and when her father confronted her he pushed him repeatedly yelling things like "So what if I grabbed the neck of a small child! You people count for fart! If you dare challenge me, just wait and see how I will deal with you." This sparked off many protests, but far more dramatic is the Weng An incident in June. 50,000 workers attacked and burnt down the police headquarters and torched numerous police cars , as well as attacking the office buildings of the county government and communist party congress in response to the whitewashing of the son of a senior county official who raped and murdered a 15 year old girl. Photos of the battle can be found here: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080701_1.htm

There are other mass incidents over police brutality in the last few weeks alone. Again in Shenzhen, 7th november, hundreds of workers clashed with police after a motorcyclist crashed and died when a police officer threw a walkie-talkie at him as he left a checkpoint. And just a few days ago 50,000 in Gansu province, protesting over the abandonment of a development plan for those who had been made homeless by the earthquake, were faced with police brutality and reacted by arming themselves with axes, metal chains and iron bars and even hijacked a fire engine to smash through heavily armed police lines.

Also in one day (4th september) there was 3 massive protests involving 100,000 people. In Jishou, Hunan, thousands battled against armed police throwing rocks and glass bottles over property developers taking huge amounts of land from local government but not having the money to develop it. In Ningbo, Zhejiang, 10000 protested and clashed with police after a 14 year old boy fell to the ground into a coma from exhaustion while working in a textile factory. And in Shenqiu, Henan province, more than 2,000 high school students protested at the attempt by local property-developers to commercially develop by force the sports ground purchased from the city educational department. The local government used the police force to suppress the students, leading to 2 female students be injured, and a dozen or so people arrested.

Also important is that the workers involved in attacks on the CCP and police are socialists. Most Chinese resent the sale off of state owned enterprises, and see Mao as both a hero and a symbol of rebellion. Whatever you may think of Mao, this is a good thing because it shows they recognise that Mao was right not only that Deng Xiaoping is a "capitalist roader" but also that being a capitalist roader is a bad thing.

The number of these incidents per annum has been rising rapidly since 1993; in 2006 there were 90,000 mass incidents involving over 100 people, and the CCP has not released information on 2007 but we do know the number rose, and is rising still, and with the recession and more unemployment we can expect something really dramatic, really soon.

BobKKKindle$

23rd November 2008, 21:56

No genuine communist should defend China, because it's clearly capitalist and abusive to its people. Just like how genuine communists never should have supported the USSR after Stalin took power.Once again, a complete lack of political analysis. Not one single person in this thread has tried to argue that the Chinese government is socialist or an accurate reflection of what workers in China want at the present time, but myself and other posters have also recognized that there are some aspects of the economic system which currently exists in China which should be supported because they allow the working class to defend itself against the threat of poverty and mass unemployment - these aspects include state ownership of strategic industries, a monopoly on foreign trade, the universal provision of education, and restrictions on the rights of foreign investors. It's silly to just condemn China without taking a close look at what is actually happening on the ground from the viewpoint of the working class, because the situation in China is a lot more complex than most people make it out to be, and as communists we should always aim to put forward an analysis which accounts for every aspect of the situation and reflects empirical reality.

And capitalists can seize control of China's state because it was always a state controlled by a ruling classA core part of the Marxist conception of history is the recognition that the political institutions of a given society are ultimately dependent on the mode of production, or the way in which a society organizes the production of the things it needs to sustain itself. In light of this basic fact, it should be obvious that the state has not remained the same throughout history, and historically a change in the mode of production and the rise of a new ruling class has always been preceded by the destruction of the old state which existed to protect the interests of the old ruling class and prevent any further development of the productive forces. This is exactly what happened in France in 1789 when the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal monarchy, and by doing so allowed France to become one of the first countries to enter the capitalist epoch and remove the feudal fetters on production. NHIA has been arguing that the revolution in China in 1949 involved the creation of a new state which was based on the class rule of the proletariat as part of a broad alliance with the oppressed peasantry despite the problems of bureaucratic deformation, and so the restoration of capitalism in China can only take place after this proletarian state has been destroyed and replaced with a bourgeois state.

Vanguard1917

23rd November 2008, 22:01

I guess I have to repeat myself again: bureaucratized proletarian state ≠ workers' power.

Then you agree that the working class was not in power in Stalinist states and that it did not rule? If so, then this is a question of semantics and labels, however incorrect those labels are.

A capitalist state is still a capitalist state even when it is controlled by a section of the officer caste of the military.

Yes, but capital continues to rule in societies under military dictatorship. In Stalinist societies, on the other hand, workers did not rule, as you now admit. It is therefore an invalid comparison.

Bureaucratized proletarian states are proletarian states because of their nature, their origins and the nature of the property forms they (nominally) defend

However, as i pointed out around 3 times already -- and you have not addressed the point -- workers' states are not defined by property forms. Nationalising property is involved in establishing workers' dictatorship, but workers' dictatorship isn't established through nationalised property alone. Social relations are key, not property forms. The fundamental characteristic of a workers' state is the working class being in power.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd November 2008, 22:52

Then you agree that the working class was not in power in Stalinist states and that it did not rule? If so, then this is a question of semantics and labels, however incorrect those labels are.

I don't know what a "Stalinist state" is.

I have made my arguments as clear as possible in this thread.

Yes, but capital continues to rule in societies under military dictatorship. In Stalinist societies, on the other hand, workers did not rule, as you now admit. It is therefore an invalid comparison.

And collectivized property forms are the basis on which the bureaucratized proletarian state rests, so yes, it is.

As for indirect class rule... perhaps you've read Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire or heard of Napoleon I or Napoleon III?

And no, I didn't admit anything about "Stalinist states" because I don't know what a "Stalinist state" is. It could mean anything, as it's based on a political slur and not a serious analysis.

However, as i pointed out around 3 times already -- and you have not addressed the point -- workers' states are not defined by property forms. Nationalising property is involved in establishing workers' dictatorship, but workers' dictatorship isn't established through nationalised property alone. Social relations are key, not property forms. The fundamental characteristic of a workers' state is the working class being in power.

You're still arguing with imaginary points.

The question of nationalized property and its relation to proletarian states has been addressed multiple times. I have pointed out the conditions that gave rise to the bureaucratic proletarian states in this thread (also multiple times). I won't do it again.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nationalized property does not make a workers' state" over and over isn't debating or helping to get to the bottom of the question.

Vanguard1917

23rd November 2008, 23:14

I don't know what a "Stalinist state" is.

For example, the Soviet Union in the '40s. Was the working class in power? Did it rule?

You have agreed that the working class is not in power and does not rule in Stalinist societies (or 'bureaucratized proletarian states'). This is inconsistent with your insistence that Stalinist societies possessed a form of proletarian state.

And collectivized property forms are the basis on which the bureaucratized proletarian state rests, so yes, it is.

It isn't a valid comparison because, to repeat once again, property forms aren't decisive from the Marxist perspective. The nature of a society isn't defined by the forms of property it possesses. It is defined by its social relations, and property forms need to be understood in that context. A proletarian state isn't defined by the existence of state ownership of property. As for capitalist societies, they continue to be capitalist societies regardless of who holds state power, due to the fact that capitalist social relations prevail.

Therefore, we can't argue that Stalinist states are proletarian states due to the fact of nationalised property, since we have already established that the existence of such property does not necessarily mean that a proletarian state exists. What defines such states is workers' power.

The question of nationalized property and its relation to proletarian states has been addressed multiple times. I have pointed out the conditions that gave rise to the bureaucratic proletarian states in this thread (also multiple times). I won't do it again.

Again? You have not addressed the issue at all in this thread, even though i have called on you to address it several times. You have merely tried to dodge the issue.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd November 2008, 23:29

Either you have trouble reading or you're being purposefully obtuse.

Nationalized property and its relation to the proletarian state has been address more times than I'd care to mention.

No one is saying that nationalized property = a proletarian state.

State property is not "progressive" in the abstract. It's obvious that there's nothing inherently "progressive" about the U.S. nationalizing a railroad company. But, when property is taken out of the hands of the capitalist class and put under the control of a proletarian state born out of a revolution however it is a different story.

A popular revolution smashed the capitalist state. A proletarian state (albeit one under the control of a privileged bureaucracy and modeled on the bureaucratized proletarian state in the USSR) was formed, the capitalist class was expropriated and its property was taken into public ownership, a planned economy was instituted, and a monopoly on foreign trade was established.

The formation of a proletarian state requires (1) an anti-capitalist revolution that leads to: (2) nationalization of key industry and finance, (3) putting foreign trade under state control, (4) institution of a planned economy.

If you want to talk about issues that were really dodged...

As for indirect class rule... perhaps you've read Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire or heard of Napoleon I or Napoleon III?

Presumably, you agree that a proletarian state was created out of the 1949 revolution. Perhaps you could tell us when that state was destroyed and replaced with a capitalist one?

Just as the workers cannot seize control of a capitalist state and use it for their own ends, the capitalists cannot seize control of a proletarian state and use it for their own ends.

* * *

Again: In a bureaucratized proletarian state the capitalist class has been politically overthrown and expropriated by a revolutionary overturn and a new state has been formed on the basis of collectivized property, yet it is not the working class but a privileged bureaucratic caste that controls the state.

Vanguard1917

23rd November 2008, 23:40

Nationalized property and its relation to the proletarian state has been address more times than I'd care to mention.

It hasn't. You have not addressed the simple flaw in your argument: nationalised property forms do not make a state proletarian in nature. You have assumed that it does, over and again. For example, in your previous post, where you argued that the existence of such forms means that a proletarian state must exist, just as a capitalist state is a capitalist state if capitalist social relations exist. Hence the underlying idea that nationalised property forms imply the existence of a proletarian state in the same way that the existence of capitalist relations of production implies the existence of a capitalist state.

Again: In a bureaucratized proletarian state the capitalist class has been politically overthrown and expropriated by a revolutionary overturn and a new state has been formed on the basis of collectivized property, yet it is not the working class but a privileged bureaucratic caste that controls the state.

Yes, and therefore no proletarian state exists. For a proletarian state to exist, workers need to be in power.

Revy

23rd November 2008, 23:50

The existence of bureaucratized proletarian states can serve to weaken world imperialism. The destruction of imperialism is a prerequisite for world socialism.

As if imperialism was even being directed toward China? China is an important partner with the US capitalist ruling class and the corporations from here that exploit workers there. Despite that, China is doing the same thing in Africa, putting companies there to exploit African workers! The US and Chinese ruling class have similar motives. Angolan workers laying fiber-optic cable can make as low as $5 a day under their "bureaucratized proletarian" Chinese bosses!

The only reason China would be threatened is if the US felt its global dominance being overstepped. As of now the US finds in China a worthy partner.

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th November 2008, 00:55

It hasn't. You have not addressed the simple flaw in your argument: nationalised property forms do not make a state proletarian in nature. You have assumed that it does, over and again. For example, in your previous post, where you argued that the existence of such forms means that a proletarian state must exist, just as a capitalist state is a capitalist state if capitalist social relations exist. Hence the underlying idea that nationalised property forms imply the existence of a proletarian state in the same way that the existence of capitalist relations of production implies the existence of a capitalist state.

Are you dense?

I'm asking a serious question because I cannot believe that someone can be so incapable of understanding someone else's argument, even when it is articulated several different times.

Let's try this once more for good measure.

Your argument: Nationalized property alone doesn't make a workers state.

I accept and agree with that.

My argument: Nationalizations by capitalist states don't create proletarian states. Anti-capitalist revolutions which result in the political overthrow and expropriation of the capitalists as a class, the taking of key industry, finance and foreign trade into public ownership, the institution of a planned economy, and the establishment of a monopoly on foreign trade do.

And as expected the issues you actually dodged before remain unaddressed.

As if imperialism was even being directed toward China? China is an important partner with the US capitalist ruling class and the corporations from here that exploit workers there. Despite that, China is doing the same thing in Africa, putting companies there to exploit African workers! The US and Chinese ruling class have similar motives. Angolan workers laying fiber-optic cable can make as low as $5 a day under their "bureaucratized proletarian" Chinese bosses!

The only reason China would be threatened is if the US felt its global dominance being overstepped. As of now the US finds in China a worthy partner.

Look, if you're interested in serious debate, you can start by basing your arguments on something other than your own assertions.

If you agree that a proletarian state was born out of the 1949 revolution then explain when and how it was smashed and replaced with a capitalist state. If you don't agree that a proletarian state was created, explain who exactly took power after the capitalist state was smashed and expropriated.

As for China not being under the attack of imperialism...

The imperialists are pursuing a two-line attack on China. On the one hand, they seek to penetrate its economy and exploit its labor and resources as much as it can. On the other hands, they continue preparations for a military attack on China.

Maybe you've heard of the blue team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_team)?

The U.S. sees China as a "partner" huh? Tell me, what kind of "partner" levies arms sanctions (http://www.nti.org/db/China/sanclist.htm)? Of course the U.S. doesn't see China as a "partner" but as a potential competitor and neocolony at the same time. That's why it sends enormous amounts of military aid to Taiwan, as it has continued to do for decades. It's also why it vocally opposes the lifting of the European arms embargo against China (http://useu.usmission.gov/Dossiers/Chinese_Arms_Embargo/default.asp) as well.

Yes, things appear peaceful on the surface, but a little digging can bring you a lot of info. For example, the Guardian of March 24, 2001, featured a story on "Washington’s decision to turn more of its guns and missiles towards China ... the principal threat to American global dominance."

Perhaps you remember that no long after a U.S. spy plane was downed in China?

The U.S. has been sending soldiers and weapons into the pacific rim for years under the guise of "theater missile defense." It's also no coincidence that its building up its military forces in Afghanistan, Japan, south Korea and the Philippines and securing more bases (such as a geographically important deep-draft navy pier in Singapore). In 2005, a ballistic missile system was placed in the region with the cooperation of imperialist Japan. Finally, just in case the imperialist threat to China wasn't clear, the Pentagon admitted in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review it has nuclear missiles aimed at China, one of seven countries on its list of targets! (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_15a.html)

Revy

24th November 2008, 01:44

Well, I'm going to list a few things which make China a partner in U.S. policies:

* After the 9/11 attacks, the PRC offered strong public support for the "War on Terrorism", United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, and publicly supported the war against Afghanistan.

* PRC has been a partner in the "six party talks", of which the U.S. is a member, that seeks to hound North Korea on the issue of a nuclear weapons program. The PRC stressed its opposition to the DPRK's decision to withdraw the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, despite not criticizing the US for having nuclear weapons. It also voted to refer the DPRK's noncompliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency obligations to the UN Security Council. China even is considering backing a coup (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587473-2703,00.html) against Kim Jong-il in order to effect "regime change" in North Korea!

Comrade_Ceaucescu

24th November 2008, 01:50

China stupid they turn capitalism first reject Soviet friendlies even when Great Ceaucescu say not to

then be capitalist after noncapitalist fat chinese die

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th November 2008, 02:39

BobKKKindle$

24th November 2008, 03:20

Revy

24th November 2008, 03:54

On the subject of whether China is faced with the threat of imperialist attack, ever since Tibet was liberated from feudalism and outdated religious practices in 1959, the US has been providing the exile community with funds as well as material resources in the form of armaments which have been used against PLA soldiers stationed on the border with India, and has even transported militants over the border and into Tibet in violation of China's national sovereignty, with the intention of undermining the territorial unity of the Chinese state and allowing Tibet to break away from the rest of China and form its own state. An independent Tibet would serve as a base for US influence and would allow the US to extend their influence into China and across the whole of the Asia-Pacific region. The US also had a direct role in provoking the reactionary pogroms directed against the Han community and the Hui ethnic minority in Tibet earlier this year, as U.S. president Bush in Washington agreed to have a meeting with the Dalai Lama just before the riots took place - the first time a sitting U.S. president has ever met publicly with the Dalai Lama. Despite the lies of reformist organizations, the relationship between the central government and the TAR (Tibet Autonomous Region) is not imperialistic and the central government has actually enabled Tibet to develop its economy and destroy the remnants of feudalism - after the initial "occupation" of Tibet, the central government established secular education and constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. As a result, the average life span of Tibetans, which had been 35 years in 1950, rose to 67 in 2001. Infant mortality, which was an astounding 43 percent in 1950, dramatically decreased to 0.661 percent in 2000. The recent opening of the Lhasa-Qinghai railway, connecting Tibet to China, has also led to economic development and an improvement of living standards.

Of course, being a reactionary organization which refuses to take the side of the world's oppressed in their struggle against imperialism, the SPUSA call for Tibetan independence....

Interesting that someone who knows little about the SPUSA would make such a false claim. The SPUSA does not call for Tibetan independence.

STATEMENT ON TIBET
by the SPUSA International Commission - March 26, 2008

The unfolding events in Tibet are a tragedy. The Chinese government has occupied Tibet for more than fifty years, using every conceivable method to incorporate the occupied territory into an integral part of China. Tibetan cultural and religious sites have been desecrated and Buddhist monks have been forced to sign a pledge of allegiance to China. In its desire to extract the valuable natural resources of Tibet, the Chinese government has ignored essential environmental safeguards.

Recently, thousands of Buddhist monks peacefully protested these policies, and were met with police violence. This brutal repression triggered a widespread popular revolt, which the Chinese government has met with overwhelming force. Dozens of protesters have been killed by Chinese troops, thousands have been arrested, and hundreds have disappeared from sight.

The Socialist Party USA urges the Chinese government to immediately withdraw all of its troops from Tibet so as to permit the people of Tibet to determine for themselves whether they they wish to remain an autonomous zone within China, or a totally independent state. At the same time, the Socialist Party calls upon the Tibetan people to respect the rights of all of its citizens and to cease all forms of violence directed at the people or property of those who, with the encouragement of the Chinese government, have moved from China to Tibet.

The future of Tibet can not lie in the creation of a theocratic feudal state such as that which existed prior to 1951. The Tibetan government in exile has recognized that a democratic representative government must provide the basis for a new Tibet. Such a democracy would recognize the rights of all of its residents, no matter what their ethnic origin or religious practice, if any, might be.

The ruthless policy of repression implemented by the Chinese government in Tibet mirrors the harsh and pervasive coercion that characterizes all of China. Independent trade unions have been suppressed, dissidents who dare to criticize the one-party state are jailed and mistreated, and peasants who protest the despoliation of the countryside confront troops who are ordered to shoot to kill. While claiming to be a Communist state, the Chinese government uses its power to crush the working class for the benefit of foreign capitalists, many of them headquartered in the United States. In reality, China is an authoritarian statist capitalist society,one that is firmly integrated into the global market economy.

The Socialist Party stands with all who seek a more democratic China. In particular, the Socialist Party USA supports the Chinese working class as it develops its own independent institutions, including trade unions. Only a mass based social movement that brings together workers and peasants can overthrow the current regime and move China forward toward a genuinely democratic socialist society. A socialist China would
respect the right of the Tibetan people to seek their own path forward.None of this explicitly calls for independence, but allowing Tibet to decide. The SPUSA is firmly on the side of the oppressed in China, by opposing China's bourgeois capitalist regime, which oppresses all workers regardless of their region.

As socialists we do not support petty nationalism about what belongs to who. The Georgians would like to believe that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are theirs as well.

We also condemned those sectors of the Tibetan population that engaged in disgusting violence against non-Tibetan groups. However, we recognized there are many who acted peacefully.

The Dalai Lama in fact has embraced Marxism....

The Dalai Lama on Marxism
"I was very young when I first heard the word communist. The 13th Dalai Lama had left a testament that I read. Also, some of the monks who were helping my studies had been in monasteries with Mongolians. They had talked about the destruction that had taken place since the communists came to Mongolia. We did not know anything about Marxist ideology. But we all feared destruction and thought of communists with terror. It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude change completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member."

"Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people."

(Time Magazine; "Exile;" October 4, 1999; pp. 78,79.)

BobKKKindle$

24th November 2008, 04:23

None of this explicitly calls for independence, but allowing Tibet to decide.The tone of the extract you posted makes it quite clear that the extension of the Chinese revolution to Tibet in 1959 was a bad thing in the eyes of the SPUSA, and there is no mention of the incredible social gains which have been made since 1959 due to the efforts of the central government and the brave individuals who voluntarily went to Tibet to provide free healthcare and improve the civic infrastructure despite the harsh conditions and remoteness of the Tibetan plateau. By describing the relationship between the central government and Tibet as one of "occupation" the extract grossly ignores the fact that Tibet has always been seen as part of China, and Tibet was accepted as a formal part of the PRC in 1951 by means of a negotiated and voluntary agreement whereby the central government agreed to secure cultural freedom for Tibet in exchange for the right to station troops on the plateau. In addition, by describing the central government as responsible for the "desecration" of religious monuments, the extract does not recognize that Tibet was largely inaccessible until fairly recently, and so whatever violence that occurred during the Cultural Revolution was conducted by Tibetan youths who recognized that the struggle against old religious ideas is a central part of the process of cultural transformation, not any external force, and the central government actually encouraged the revolutionary youth to preserve valuable artifacts across China, although this advice was not always followed, for obvious reasons. In other words, although there is not explicit support for independence, the SPUSA has clearly taken a pro-imperialist position.

The extract also neglects to mention what actually took place during the disturbances earlier this year and tries to make it seem as if innocents were gunned down in the streets by the local authorities, whereas in reality the authorities were actually very careful and always had medical care available to help people who were accidentally wounded or otherwise harmed. The protesters, by contrast, went through the streets of Lhasa looking for people who were not members of the Tibetan ethnic group and then proceeded to beat these people up in the middle of the street and cause serious injuries, and there were also cases of houses which were not marked with a white symbol (denoting that they were owned by Tibetans) being burnt to the ground as an act of hatred against the Han. (Source: Tibetans Burn Chinese Shops in Major Protest, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88228090) NPR). Of the 18 civilians who died during the course of the protests, only one was killed by the authorities, the rest were killed by Tibetan mobs.

As for the assertion that the Dalai Lama has "embraced" Marxism, it's clear from the comment you posted that Marxism is equated with a general attitude of "justice" and if we take a closer look at what the Dalai Lama actually believes it becomes clear that he rejects what Marxism is really supposed to be about: the violent expropriation of property and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Dalai Lama said the following:

“There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... It is better to develop a positive attitude.”

This is taken from the Parenti article entitled 'Friendly Feudalism', and he cites the following as his source: These comments are from a book of the Dalai Lama's writings quoted in Nikolai Thyssen, "Oceaner af onkel Tom," Dagbladet Information, 29 December 2003, (translated for me [Parenti] by Julius Wilm). Thyssen's review (in Danish) can be found at http://www.information.dk/Indgang/Vi...1229154141.txt (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.information.dk/Indgang/VisArkiv.dna?pArtNo=20031229154141.txt)

As socialists we do not support petty nationalism about what belongs to who.Marxists recognize that in the age of imperialism, the national question assumes decisive importance, and we always take the side of the oppressed in their struggle against imperialism, for the simply reason that imperialism contributes towards the oppression of the masses and sustains the capitalist system.

******

You've actually ignored what my post was about. You asserted that China is in a "partnership" with the US and is not faced with the threat of imperialism, but the historic and ongoing relationship between the US and the reactionary Tibetan exile community is a clear example of how this is not the case. You obviously can't deal with my point, so accept that you were wrong.

Revy

24th November 2008, 04:42

bobkindles, you assume that I am unaware of those events. I am well aware, I even mentioned them, if you read what I posted.

The Tibetan exile community is not some big looming threat against China. The U.S. government in fact opposes Taiwanese independence. It does not call for Tibetan independence either, but for "dialogue" with the Dalai Lama. A simple Google News search is able to corroborate my claims about the relationship between the two governments of the U.S. and China. U.S., China Leaders Make Push for Free Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731708505149927.html?mod=googlenews_wsj):

LIMA, Peru -- United States President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao made a friendly push for free trade, at a time when the booming U.S.-Asia trading relationship is being threatened by the financial crisis and rising protectionism.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CS265_bush11_D_20081121203632.jpg
ReutersPresident Bush, left, and Chinese President Hu Jintao meet at the Pacific Rim summit in Lima on Friday.

In what is likely their last official meeting, the two leaders "continued their conversation about the global financial situation, the need to reject protectionism and the work ahead" to accomplish a new global trade deal, the White House said in a statement late Friday. The two leaders met at the beginning of a Pacific Rim summit that's expected to focus on the impact of the crisis on fast-growing Asia.

In particular, Mr. Bush "raised the issue of the need for increased market access commitments," a reference to a major sticking point of the current global trade negotiations. Economic experts say the biggest holdup in gaining a new trade deal is the problem of getting greater access for U.S. and European firms to developing countries' agricultural markets. Developing countries such as India are reluctant to expose their farmers to increased competition from big Western agribusinesses, because farmers often are a crucial domestic political constituency.

But obtaining greater access to developing countries' food markets is essential in the U.S., in order to get the support of the agricultural community for reducing subsidies -- a key demand of the developing countries.

Agricultural disputes are "the tip of the spear" in the issues holding up a new trade deal, said Charles Freeman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

But a number of experts say even with a new push, the outlook for a global deal remains uncertain at best, particularly given the rising protectionism that's evident in places like the U.S. Many free-trade advocates are turning to the prospect of regional trade deals, such as a trans-Pacific trade area, as a possible long-term alternative. That's likely to be a point of new emphasis during the weekend's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation annual summit.

The two leaders' one-on-one meeting Friday on the summit's sidelines likely marked their last get-together before Mr. Bush leaves office in January. At the beginning of their private meeting, Mr. Bush told Mr. Hu he "felt a little nostalgic," adding that he's comfortable with their personal relationship, as well as the state of ties between China and the U.S., the White House said.

The U.S. president views his achievements in promoting U.S.-Asian cooperation as one of the major economic and foreign-policy successes of his term in office. He's expected to use a speech on Saturday to review many of those successes, and urge world leaders to stay on the path of free trade and free markets, despite the market meltdown.

"No region of the world demonstrates the power of these forces more vividly than the Asia-Pacific," Mr. Bush says in his weekly radio address, which tracks the same themes. "Free markets have helped millions lift themselves out of poverty. Free trade has helped small nations turn themselves into global economic powers. And as more people in the Asia-Pacific are free to develop their talents and pursue their ambitions, the whole region has grown in prosperity. We're facing a difficult challenge and there will be tough days ahead. But by relying on these principles, we can be confident in the future of our Nation and the world."

The two men also discussed how to provide more verification of North Korea's cooperation in talks to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and related activities.

Mr. Bush also reiterated his opposition to Taiwan independence, and again pushed China to continue its dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader.

Pogue

24th November 2008, 10:49

Once more, Marxist theory does not justify supporting regies just because they call themselves communist.

We call for the working class to rise up and seize control of the Chinese state. While doing all of this we recognize and point out that the best way to weaken the bureaucracy, embolden the working class, defend the existing gains and assure future victory is to extend the revolution to the rest of Asia, especially imperialist Japan, and we fight for exactly that.

Don't we call for the working class to rise up and seize cnotrol of every state in the world?

And extend what revolution? There is no revolution to extend in Asia.

Vanguard1917

24th November 2008, 13:25

OK, one at a time, once again...

Anti-capitalist revolutions which result in the political overthrow and expropriation of the capitalists as a class

We have already discussed this. Expropriation of the capitalists and the taking of state power do not mean that the proletariat has secured its control and class rule. The socialist government needs to be successful in securing the position of the working class as ruling class - otherwise the revolution can't be a successful one. As i said before, expropriating the capitalists is a relatively straightforward task. It does not on its own mean that workers' rule is secured. Workers' don't become rulers by default, but by conscious and active revolutionary struggle to enforce their class interets. That's the only way in which the proletarian state can be defended.

the taking of key industry, finance and foreign trade into public ownership...the establishment of a monopoly on foreign trade do.

As we have established, there is nothing inherently socialistic about state control over the economy.

the institution of a planned economy

Yes, a consciously planned economy (i.e. conscious regulation) is only possible through workers' control; in other words, a planned economy presupposes workers' control. Such an economy did not exist in Stalinist societies, where chaos and spontaneity in production prevailed. Lenin had argued that for a planned economy to be achieved, workers must first secure their political power. Then they can begin to take responsibility for regulating economic forces and establish a planned economy. Only a process of conscious decision-making by the working class can achieve conscious planning of economic forces.

And as expected the issues you actually dodged before remain unaddressed

All of the above had already been addressed in this thread.

BobKKKindle$

24th November 2008, 14:20

HLVS:

Once more, Marxist theory does not justify supporting regies just because they call themselves communist.Why don't you actually read through this thread for a change? We are all agreed that the Chinese regime should not be given our support, but you refuse to acknowledge that there are progressive aspects of the Chinese economic system which we should try to defend against the threat of market reforms, and if China is faced with threat of imperialist attack we should also support the struggle against imperialism and call for unconditional military defense. This is not any kind of abstract theory, it's a correct position based on the interests of the world proletariat. Now be quiet, and let the rest of us have a serious discussion.

stancel:

bobkindles, you assume that I am unaware of those events. I am well aware, I even mentioned them, if you read what I posted.If you are aware of all these facts, why are you a member of an organization which adopted such a reactionary pro-imperialist position on the disturbances in Tibet, and refused to stand alongside the Chinese people? Why did you assert that the Dalai Lama has "embraced" Marxism when this is clearly not the case?

The Tibetan exile community is not some big looming threat against ChinaThe disturbances earlier this year were more serious than anything China has experienced for more than two decades, and so this does constitute a serious threat not only to China's internal stability, but also to China's image in the eyes of the international community, especially when we consider that the disturbances occurred shortly before the Beijing Olympics were due to take place.

It does not call for Tibetan independence either, but for "dialogue" with the Dalai LamaEven this position is threatening towards China, because if the Chinese government agreed to hold direct talks with the Dalai Lama they would be recognizing him as a legitimate political leader and a representative of the inhabitants of Tibet, thereby undermining the authority of the Chinese government and encouraging further disturbances within Tibet. It's no coincidence that almost every imperialist country, including France and the UK, issues exactly the same demand. In reality, however, this position is only a facade for the role of the US is funding the exile community and supporting reactionary attacks against China. You are being very naive by judging the US solely on the basis of what the government says its position is - let's not forget that the US invaded Iraq on the pretext that regime change would protect the rights of the Iraqi people and allow democracy to be introduced.

The U.S. government in fact opposes Taiwanese independenceThe US does not publicly support Taiwanese independence because the realities of geopolitics prevent them from doing so and yet if we look at the way the US has acted towards the renegade Taiwanese regime it becomes clear that the US is actually committed to Taiwanese independence and wants to prevent the Chinese government from asserting control over what should be an integral part of the Chinese nation. Again, you're adopting a very superficial approach to geopolitics by judging leaders based on what they say in public instead of examining the way they act behind the scenes. The Taiwanese military receives around 90% of its arms from the US despite domestic opposition to the arms trade between the two countries, and at the same time the US also refuses to sell arms to the Chinese government and has also pressured other countries such as the members of the EU to maintain an arms embargo against China. The US has also assisted Taiwan in carrying out military exercises which are allegedly designed to prepare Taiwan from the imaginary threat of an attack from the Chinese government but in reality serve to intimidate the Chinese government and prevent the two sides from peacefully resolving their disagreements. In 2004, Taiwan conducted the "Han Kuang 20" computer simulation which emulated a military conflict across the Taiwan straits, and a 60-member panel sent by the US government not only mastered the whole process of the computer simulation drill, but also went deep into Taiwan's various military headquarters and theatres of war to gain full knowledge of the transfer of the island's military forces as well as their logistics conditions in this drill. The US also offered Taiwan relevant military exercise software and logistics armament parameters used by the US Pacific Fleet. At the same time, the panel brought relevant data from the "Han Kuang 20" simulation back to the US for reference, so that the Pentagon can take the optimal occasion and way for military intervention in any potential military strike China launches against Taiwan. This is obvious evidence that China is faced with the threat of attack from the US.

As for the article you posted on the issue of economic ties, this once again indicates that you are hopelessly naive - the US President has to say that he is comfortable with the state of relations between China and the US regardless of what relations between the two countries are actually like, to hide the fact that the US seeks to dominate China, both militarily and economically. You ignore the fact that the US has consistently placed pressure on China to remove controls on the value of the Renminbi, as this is one of the ways the Chinese government has been able to retain control of the economy and limit the extent of imperialist exploitation. The US has also attempted to bring charges against China inside the WTO on the grounds that the government has been providing subsidies to infant industries, in violation of WTO rules: United States Files WTO Case Against China Over Prohibited Subsidies (http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/February/United_States_Files_WTO_Case_Against_China_Over_Pr ohibited_Subsidies.html)

ZeroNowhere

25th November 2008, 09:35

That's a bit of an understatement.

China is a complete capitalist country at this point with fewer and fewer state interference that made it a state capitalilst country before the major capitalist reforms.
Pretty much this.
It was never one of our own, smash it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th November 2008, 09:37

Your refreshingly in-depth analysis is clearly superior to the other weak arguments that have been put forward here. Thanks for contributing.

ZeroNowhere

25th November 2008, 09:39

Your refreshingly in-depth analysis is clearly superior to the other weak arguments that have been put forward here. Thanks for contributing.
One needs to give an in-depth analysis of why China isn't socialist, and there's nothing wrong with revolting against the CCP?

Revy

25th November 2008, 14:48

stancel:
If you are aware of all these facts, why are you a member of an organization which adopted such a reactionary pro-imperialist position on the disturbances in Tibet, and refused to stand alongside the Chinese people? Why did you assert that the Dalai Lama has "embraced" Marxism when this is clearly not the case?

The disturbances earlier this year were more serious than anything China has experienced for more than two decades, and so this does constitute a serious threat not only to China's internal stability, but also to China's image in the eyes of the international community, especially when we consider that the disturbances occurred shortly before the Beijing Olympics were due to take place.

Even this position is threatening towards China, because if the Chinese government agreed to hold direct talks with the Dalai Lama they would be recognizing him as a legitimate political leader and a representative of the inhabitants of Tibet, thereby undermining the authority of the Chinese government and encouraging further disturbances within Tibet. It's no coincidence that almost every imperialist country, including France and the UK, issues exactly the same demand. In reality, however, this position is only a facade for the role of the US is funding the exile community and supporting reactionary attacks against China. You are being very naive by judging the US solely on the basis of what the government says its position is - let's not forget that the US invaded Iraq on the pretext that regime change would protect the rights of the Iraqi people and allow democracy to be introduced.

The US does not publicly support Taiwanese independence because the realities of geopolitics prevent them from doing so and yet if we look at the way the US has acted towards the renegade Taiwanese regime it becomes clear that the US is actually committed to Taiwanese independence and wants to prevent the Chinese government from asserting control over what should be an integral part of the Chinese nation. Again, you're adopting a very superficial approach to geopolitics by judging leaders based on what they say in public instead of examining the way they act behind the scenes. The Taiwanese military receives around 90% of its arms from the US despite domestic opposition to the arms trade between the two countries, and at the same time the US also refuses to sell arms to the Chinese government and has also pressured other countries such as the members of the EU to maintain an arms embargo against China. The US has also assisted Taiwan in carrying out military exercises which are allegedly designed to prepare Taiwan from the imaginary threat of an attack from the Chinese government but in reality serve to intimidate the Chinese government and prevent the two sides from peacefully resolving their disagreements. In 2004, Taiwan conducted the "Han Kuang 20" computer simulation which emulated a military conflict across the Taiwan straits, and a 60-member panel sent by the US government not only mastered the whole process of the computer simulation drill, but also went deep into Taiwan's various military headquarters and theatres of war to gain full knowledge of the transfer of the island's military forces as well as their logistics conditions in this drill. The US also offered Taiwan relevant military exercise software and logistics armament parameters used by the US Pacific Fleet. At the same time, the panel brought relevant data from the "Han Kuang 20" simulation back to the US for reference, so that the Pentagon can take the optimal occasion and way for military intervention in any potential military strike China launches against Taiwan. This is obvious evidence that China is faced with the threat of attack from the US.

As for the article you posted on the issue of economic ties, this once again indicates that you are hopelessly naive - the US President has to say that he is comfortable with the state of relations between China and the US regardless of what relations between the two countries are actually like, to hide the fact that the US seeks to dominate China, both militarily and economically. You ignore the fact that the US has consistently placed pressure on China to remove controls on the value of the Renminbi, as this is one of the ways the Chinese government has been able to retain control of the economy and limit the extent of imperialist exploitation. The US has also attempted to bring charges against China inside the WTO on the grounds that the government has been providing subsidies to infant industries, in violation of WTO rules: United States Files WTO Case Against China Over Prohibited Subsidies (http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/February/United_States_Files_WTO_Case_Against_China_Over_Pr ohibited_Subsidies.html)

I don't think my party is refusing to stand with the Chinese people by refusing to stand with the bureaucratic elite that oppresses them. As what I quoted says, "While claiming to be a Communist state, the Chinese government uses its power to crush the working class for the benefit of foreign capitalists, many of them headquartered in the United States."

When you have the President of China meeting with Bush and both promoting free trade, I just think that demolishes the idea completely that this is a "bureaucratized proletarian" state. Is that what you think, that Hu is just meeting with Bush and hiding his true feelings? What kind of workers' state endorses free trade?

The aggression is being directed at Russia. They may fear a Sino-Russian alliance. I agree there may be behind the scenes talk about aggression against China. And Biden did mention China along with Russia and India as emerging superpowers he would oppose. However, there's not the same deluge of aggression toward China as there is toward Russia. That doesn't mean I don't stand with China against the possibility.

Nothing Human Is Alien

25th November 2008, 16:07

It's obvious you didn't seriously read any of the arguments made. You're not attempting to refute any of the points raised by other comrades, and in fact you completely ignore them. Instead you plug up your ears and yell "free trade, free trade, capitalist, capitalist!" Do you honestly expect people to waste time in that sort of "debate?"

Yehuda Stern

25th November 2008, 17:56

Actually, there's nothing inherently capitalist about meeting with an imperialist head of state and discussing free trade with him. I would like to remind everyone that the only workers' state in history tried for a long time to convince the capitalist world to engage in trade relations with it. So that argument is pretty weak.

A better argument would be to point out to an obvious truth: China never had a workers' revolution, only a peasant revolution. That revolution won important democratic gains that workers should strive to defend, but defending them requires fighting against the Stalinists, not glorifying them as some sort of misguided revolutionary force. The question is not if China has already become capitalist - it always was capitalist. The question is only how long the Chinese bourgeoisie intends to keep the communist charade.

Most Pabloites are caught in an irresolvable contradiction: those who want to claim that China was a workers' state but became capitalist fail to point to any significant counterrevolution (not to any successful one, anyway - they call many workers' uprisings "counterrevolutions," but those have been done away with thanks to very proletarian oppression). This just makes them reformists in reverse. Others who want to say that China is still a capitalist state have bigger problem. A workers' state is a state in which the revolutionary party struggles the negative effects of the law of value. However, the CCP doesn't struggle with that law but lets it run rampant.

So we either have a peaceful class transition or a workers' state that fulfills no function of such a state, even in a deformed way. What is to be done? One would have to either conclude that China was never a workers' state, or throw Marxist theory overboard. Pabloists will inevitably choose the latter.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st December 2008, 07:53

Just because you don't know when it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Um, yeah, that was my point. In some countries there was no successful armed revolution of the bourgeoisie against the feudal aristocracy, yet capitalism replaced feudalism anyway.

And no, that's not what "we've seen happen" in "Russia" (actually the USSR, which was made up of 15 separate republics).
I was referring to the Russian Federation, since capitalism was restored under Yeltsin. But it is of course true that the same thing happened in all other ex-Soviet republics after 1991.

"While relying on its existence for their positions, the bureaucrats simultaneously undermine the bureaucratized proletarian state by pursuing their own narrow interests (especially by seeking out ways to get more privileges and to secure wealth and positions of power that can be inherited by their offspring).

"The tendency of the bureaucracies to attempt to 'peacefully coexist' with imperialism, allow increasing capitalist penetration into the economy and seek out new property forms, combined with the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, can lead to an eventual collapse of the bureaucratized proletarian state under the weight of its own contradictions. In the wake of such a collapse the bureaucracy will split, with the largest section most likely going over the internal and external forces of capitalist counterrevolution which will take full advantage of the situation to take power and forge a capitalist state. This is what occurred in the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and east Germany." - Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)
Yes, that is a very good analysis of the problem, and I agree completely. The difference is that I'm saying the same process also occurred in China. The bureaucratic faction that supported capitalist counterrevolution was of course the faction of Deng Xiaoping; they were able to seize control of the machinery of the state and use it for the restoration of capitalism. After capitalism was restored, they became the new bourgeoisie.

Presumably, you agree that a proletarian state was created out of the 1949 revolution. Perhaps you could tell us when that state was destroyed and replaced with a capitalist one?
Between 1978 and 1989.

The restoration of capitalism, everywhere it has occurred, has brought with it a massive fall in living standards for the majority of the population. Unemployment and homelessness skyrocketed, social security and infrastructure crumbled, and in many cases, life expectancy has even fallen dramatically. No such thing has happened in China, nor has the state created out of the 1949 revolution been overthrown.
Right, but the restoration of capitalism is defined by the change in property relations, not by the effects on living standards that this change may or may not have.

The property relations in China are the same as in any capitalist state with a significant public sector. If a country's economic structure is identical to the economic structure of capitalism, then the country is capitalist and its state is a capitalist state. There can be no such thing as a proletarian state presiding over a capitalist economy, except in the very short run.

Also, how exactly do you determine the continuity of states, to decide if a state has been overthrown or merely reformed? The Soviet state was clearly overthrown, true, but the matter becomes a whole lot less clear if you look at Eastern Europe. There is legal continuity between the pre-1989 and post-1989 states in all Eastern European countries except East Germany and Yugoslavia. In fact, Hungary still operates under a constitution initially passed in the 1950s (amended in the 1990s, of course).

“The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." - Karl Marx
Yet that is precisely what happened in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria between 1945 and 1949.

So, either they were proletarian states and Marx was thus proven wrong; or Marx was right, in which case they could not have been proletarian states. I subscribe to the first view.

Just as the workers cannot seize control of a capitalist state and use it for their own ends, the capitalists cannot seize control of a proletarian state and use it for their own ends.
So what exactly happened in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania? There were no armed revolutions in these countries, no coups, no abolition of existing states. Power was transferred to the capitalists in perfect accordance with existing laws.

The formation of a proletarian state requires (1) an anti-capitalist revolution that leads to: (2) nationalization of key industry and finance, (3) putting foreign trade under state control, (4) institution of a planned economy.
Right. The point is, if a proletarian states loses one or more of those characteristics, in what sense can it still be called a proletarian state?

"China is not socialist, nor is there workers control. But that doesn't mean the state in China is a capitalist state. It's a proletarian state in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. It can be compared to a capitalist state in the hands of a section of the military officer caste or a workers' union in the hands of a pro-boss bureaucracy."
I accept that comparison. But it would be rather ludicrous for workers to defend the actions of a pro-boss bureaucracy, or for a bourgeoisie to defend the actions of a military junta they do not control. So, clearly, we cannot and should not defend the current Chinese government (except in the increasingly rare instances when it plays an anti-imperialist role).

And there is one other point: The Chinese state is not in the hands of a bureaucracy. It is in the hands of a bourgeoisie. After all, what else can you call the private businessmen - owners of means of production - who are part of the Chinese government?

Bureaucratized proletarian states are proletarian states because of their nature, their origins and the nature of the property forms they (nominally) defend.
Except that the Chinese state is moving away from even nominally defending public ownership, as recent constitutional changes have shown.