At 19:52 30/09/99 PDT, you wrote:
> Now that my email address is back up and running I can announce the
>following. Those comrades who are interested in vicariously hearing the
>celebrations as they evolve can tune in to live english feeds at
>http://www.cri.com.cn/english/
>
>Macdonald
>
>Happy anninversary to the Chinese revolution.
Yes, it would be very odd if we did not recognise one of the most important
events of the history of the 20th century which has influenced the pattern
of world politics since.
The Chinese revolution was a major blow against imperialism in what had
been a semi-colonial semi-feudal country. The Chinese Communist Party
described the political system from 1949 as "New Democracy".
Is China now socialist? What are the relevant issues to answer this question?
Western journalists seem to touch on this superficially and give an
impression that because China is not egalitarian and because individual
capitalists exist in China, the country is not socialist. I do not think
these are fundamentally the decisive questions. Nor is inward investment by
overseas capital. Nor is the level of corruption, nor the fairly common use
of the death penalty, nor general intolerance of homosexuality, nor
infringements of socialist democracy in areas like Tibet which may restrict
the right of nations to self-determination.
In the era of imperialism what is decisive is whether finance capitalism is
dominant. I am not persuaded that it is in China today.
I am also persuaded that the town and village enterprise sector of the
economy is larger and more vibrant than western financial journalists
report (no doubt because at best they are looking for investment
opportunities in more established companies).
At its most coherent, the Chinese Communist Party essentially argues that
the move to socialism in the 1950's was premature, and that China needed a
mixed economy for a long period of time. The parallel argument for the
Soviet Union would be that the scenario that Lenin painted in "On
Cooperation", really his last substantial theoretical article, written in
1923, should have been extended for half a century at least and probably a
century. The time span might arguably be dependent on the speed of
socialist revolution in other parts of the world.
The issue is whether revolutions like those in Russian and China can safely
and quickly draw on traditions of peasant communism to leap to a socialist
or semi-communist political system without the means of production and the
cultural level of the population developing to roughly the level at which a
capitalist economy could change to socialist economy.
In asking "Is China socialist?" we also have to consider whether there can
be a clear cut answer. Most economies in history have mixtures of different
ways of exchanging products of labour. A marxist analysis should try to
identify the dominant mode but that may be finely balanced and the answer
may depend on which aspect is primarily considered.
I think I would say that in a world dominated by imperialism and finance
capital China is clearly a major anti-imperialist force and is not itself
dominated by finance capital. I think I would say its economy is at least
semi-socialist.
Undoubtedly there are be strong views on this question. I hope by
emphasising the issues of what questions we ask, and how we answer them,
any debate about this important anniversary would be in line with the
moderators wishes for this list and can be engaged and constructive.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
