Michael Roberts and others wish to use economic growth in China to show that it is not capitalist. Thus the preoccupation to trying to prove that China's current growth is so wonderful. But on what grounds can they claim that this growth, plus the state sector, show the nature of the social system?
Well, consider the recent book by Riberts and Carchedi "Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century". What one sees is utter hypocrisiy. On pages 196-197, they "categorise a transitional economcy between capitalism towards socialism" by giving 8 points. Point 2 is as follows: "2. Capitalist state power is replaced by workers' democracy based on Engels' two principles of democratic right of recall and the wages of officials at the same level as average workers' wages." (Page 196) This is their description of workers' rule. It is an attempt to describe what would replace the capitalist state power. They stress that this second point is the key one, writing "The second point is vital in categorising any transition to socialism or communism." and "These two principles [the ones from Engels they referred to in point #2] are the key indicators of a workers' democracy required for the transition to socialism. Their expansion or withering away indicates whether a society is moving towards or away from socialism. The other features of a transitional economy should be considered in the light of whether they are an expression of these two principles." (pages 197) Unfortunately, having emphasized this in theory, less than 30 pages later, they then vehmently trample on it in practice. With respect to China, they write that "the bureaucracy and the CCP" are defending a transition to socialism. (page 224) What happened to the "vital" second point? The Chinese workers do not have the right to recall the bureaucracy, or even to discuss openly the policies of the bureaucracy, and there is a truly vast discrepancy between the average wage of the Chinese worker and the income of the elite officials. Yet according to Roberts and Carchedi, "the bureaucracy and the CCP want to pursue policies to strengthen their grip on power, but in so doing they must defend the 'socialist' aspects of the transition." Really? How can Roberts and Carchedi really mean that the bureaucracy and the CCP are defending the "socialist" aspect of the transitional economy while also holding that the key to the transitional economy is point #2, "workers' democracy"? Well, you see,Roberts and Carchedi didn't really mean that point #2 was essential, only that it was "vital". It would seem that it is "vital" to proclaim worker's democracy in theory in order to provide Marxist cover for disregarding workers' democracy in practice. What they apparently actually hold is that the elite can tighten repression "to strengthen their grip on power", and still be defending the "socialist" aspect of the society. They said, about 30 pages earlier, that "the expansion or withering away" of workers' democracy indicates whether "a society is moving towards or away from socialism". But apparently it can wither away so far that one would need an electron microscope to find it, as it has in China, and yet -- in their theory -- the society is supposedly simply "stalled" on the road to socialism, with the Chinese elite defending the "socialist" aspect of the transition. Roberts and Carachedi admit that "The CCP also faces reaction from an increasingly self-confident working class." But if the CCP is defending the "socialist" aspect of a transitional economy, then why does the working-classs, when it becomes self-confident, oppose the CCP? The solution to this riddle is that it depends on what one means by socialism and the transition towards socialism. It's because the real theory in the book isn't that point #2 is vital, but is closer to that the development of the state-sector, combined with economic growth, is the key to analyzing whether a society has left the rails of capitalism. From that standpoint, those who are trampling on the rights of the working class are nevertheless defending the "socialist" aspect of the society, if they defend the state sector and/or certain policies. This is reminiscent of the reasoning in Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", and it hasn't gotten any better as it ages. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#28641): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/28641 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103982797/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
