******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
David Walters writes: “Evidently you haven't read Michael Robert's blog. I think there is capitalism in China but it doesn't seem to be like the kind of capitalism that responds simply to market pressures, stock dividends, or profitability.” I did read Michael’s blog article; yes, there is state-led economic regulation and even direction, to some extent, of Chinese capitalism so that it doesn’t respond “simply” to market pressures, stock dividends etc (his article does not show that it doesn’t respond at all). Yes, it is a variety of state-regulated capitalism – its own variety, but a variety nevertheless. But nowhere in his article did I find back-up for your claim that the bourgeoisie is “atomised socially and politically” – especially socially! As for politically, it would seem there is a far greater proportion of billionaires among Chinese legislators than In Australia – while I have seen the argument that exactly this shows it is not a capitalist state, since the capitalists have to themselves enter the state to serve their interests which they don’t trust the state to do otherwise – I find such an argument stretching logic really thin. “But I would challenge you Michael to show how this is simply warmed over Nasserism or Peronism.” I didn’t say it was, I listed a number of *different* types of state-regulated capitalisms. Nasserism/Peronism was one type; Chinese CP leadership of the “advanced productive forces” is another. Fascism is another. NICs another etc. Anthony Boynton says that China is capitalist, “but it is not the same kind of capitalist state that Russia is, not the kind of capitalist state that the United States is, not the kind of a capitalist state that France is.” Yeh, I didn’t say it was. In fact, Anthony goes further than me, and does what David thinks I am doing with Nasserism/Peronism: Anthony says China is similar to the Mexican PRI regime. Note that I didn’t go that far. But I agree with Anthony’s general point: both the Chinese CP and Mexican PRI versions of state-regulated capitalism reflect, in some distorted sense, the sweeping popular revolutions that occurred in their countries. I think that is a better avenue to look down when analysing what is genuinely unique about today’s Chinese capitalism, the ongoing legacy, impact of such a sweeping revolution, rather than trying to find some new social formation. However, Anthony then says: “There is nothing unscientific about delineating different varieties of pigs and cows. Why would it be unscientific to delineate different varieties of capitalist political regimes?” Since I had used the word “unscientific”, I assume Anthony is referring to me. Yet of course I precisely delineated different varieties of capitalist political regimes. I mentioned Keynesian/welfare state, fascist states, Nasserite/Peronist states (a bit too sweeping in itself), states like China (or Vietnam), the NICs, as all being different from one another and from neo-liberal regimes. But I thought calling China neither a capitalist nor a workers state but instead a “state capitalist state” was going well beyond describing a different variety of “capitalist political regime”, but rather a distinct kind of class state (apologies if I was mistaken about that). I think it is interesting that while we are having this debate, Louis just posted a comment about his article on fascist economics: “Alfred Sohn-Rethel, in “The Economy and Structure of German Fascism” (on line), says that part of the Nazi project was to restore the dominance of the coal-iron-steel sector which had lost power to the high-tech “internationalists” (whom I take to be the counterpart of today’s neoliberals). They did this by starting up the smokestack industries *by fiat*, thereby eliminating unemployment— *at the cost of undermining the mark and destroying Germany’s position in the world market*. It should be remembered that the Nazis froze wages at half the 1929 level.” That does not sound to me like “simply” responding to market signals. To clarify, I think Chinese state-directed capitalism has done extraordinary stuff, and deserves lots of study; I’m certainly not comparing it to a fascist state. On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Anthony Boynton via Marxism <[email protected]> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > mkaradjis wrote > > that China is "...a kind of state-directed capitalism, like Keynesianism, > like fascism, like Nasserism/Peronism, like NICism etc. But a > "state capitalist state" as some kind of new social formation? A > tad unscientific I would think. > > "Really, what is the big resistance still to recognising China as > a capitalist state?" > > Personally, I think it is a capitalist state, but it is not the same kind > of capitalist state that Russia is, not the kind of capitalist state that > the United States is, not the kind of a capitalist state that France is... > > China is a special kind of capitalist state very close to what Mexico was > during the long reign of the PRI. Social revolutions in both countries, > based on the peasantry and not the urban working class, led to transitional > revolutionary dictatorships. The PRI dictatorship always saw itself as > leading the capitalist development of Mexico, albeit it had a social > democratic view of its capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party believed > that it was leading a socialist country, but then pragmatically - and > self-consciously - decided to follow the capitalist road. > > It has done so in a planned, thought out way led by the state and the > Communist Party. > > This is almost the opposite of the collapse of planning that occurred when > the Soviet Union collapsed. > > There is nothing unscientific about delineating different varieties of pigs > and cows. Why would it be unscientific to delineate different varieties of > capitalist political regimes? > > Chinese capitalism shows the absolute limits of capitalist development on > this planet. Capitalism can no longer develop without being directed by the > state. This is only a stop gap because China is not exempt from the laws of > the world market and is likely to be at the center of the next great > crisis. > > Anthony > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
