Re: China and socialism

[Waistline2]

>If any confirmation of the correctness of Marty Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett's "China and Socialism" (a book-length article in the July-August 2004 Monthly Review) was needed, you can look at the heartrending Aug. 1,  2004 NY Times article on the suicide of Zheng Qingming. This 18 year old peasant youth threw himself into the path of an onrushing locomotive because he lacked the $80 in fees to continue with college. It is the first in a series of NY Times articles dealing with class divisions in China, a country in which 85 million people earn less than $75 per year.<   Comment   Interesting . . . 85 million people with $75(US) per year . . . what was it twenty years ago? Where is the relationship? What do $75 (US) buy amongst these 85 million peoples . . . peasants?   The first rule of politics for political leaders on the side of the proletariat in the American Union is that if the New York Times or Washington Post run a story on China . . . position yourself in opposition to it and you will be on the right side of the polarity  . . . 90% of the time . . . always. A 10% loss rate is acceptable for any political leader.   This is not to say one rejects data from the bourgeoisie . . . but rather . . . the story of an 18 year old boy killing himself because he could not go to college is for suckers and political panhandlers.   Let's political thug.   Earlier in July there was a series of articles about China on the A-List and the review of the Monthly Review article. To my knowledge no one disputes capitalism in China . . . or rather . . . I do not dispute the existence and operation of the bourgeois property relations and the unrestrained law of value . . . creating the specific circuit of reproduction.   By "no one" is meant those who wrote concerning China and prior to that the issue of the loss of manufacturing jobs in China was spoken of. Questions like why are the manufacturing jobs lost was asked since China is hands down the low cost producer? Why are manufacturing jobs being lost in low producer China and the reason is not capitalism.   Again . . . I have written nothing to dispute the bourgeois property relations in China . . . at least in the last 15 years.   There was a question of what portion of the GDP was driven by FDI and/or its economic weight as reproduction and development of the industrial and post industrial infrastructure . . . as opposed to consumer goods. This includes most certainly the military infrastructure. The military infrastructure emerged as of supreme importance to socialism as a transition in the form of property.   The point is that if one is to get into the meat of the matter . . . an analysis from two different direction is necesaary. One direction is the import of the military technology and military wares on the basis of bourgeois property. The other is the system of reproduction of these wares and its subjection to the unrestricted law of value . . . or capitalism.   Actually . . . military production is important to bourgeois America and it is all capitalism. Get into the issue and lets deal with something more than ideology and what we already know about bourgeois property in China.     Pardon me . . . but capitalism in China is not what produces class divisions. The bourgeois property relations exacerbates inequality based on property and ownership rights . . . as it takes root on the basis of the industrial system.   I do believe that what is taking place in China can . . . in the future . . . open another level of discussion absent amongst Marxists . . . as opposed to the left which is uniformly anti-Communist . . .  and have always been basically anti-Communists in America and fundamentally anti-China and anti-Soviet.   The strength of the counterrevolution is not a subjective question rooted in the thinking of individuals and I do not subscribe to a "great individual theory" of history. One might as well say that Hitler was responsible for German fascism.   No . . . I believe more is involved in history than simply the individuals whose personality captures the moment. In other words I am a dogmatic materialist.   Rather the question that has not been explored is the law of value as it operates under the industrial system no matter what stage of transition of its property relations. Here is the economic base of the counterrevolution. This is what Cuba and North Korea faces . . . in addition to a more powerful imperial antagonists.   If class divisions are not the result of capitalism (and one must separate these issues or they cannot wage the proper political struggle) but rather the mode of production as a specific combination of human labor + machinery + energy source . . . we can begin to describe more accurately the environment we operate in. This is important because people follow leaders who realize their collective vision and their vision is rooted in how they understand what is possible during distinct economic eras.   To state this another way . . . no new rising class or its political _expression_ can triumph and drive the revolutionary process to its conclusion on the basis of fighting on the economic terrain of their enemy.   Since I do not dispute the bourgeois property relations in China . . . and its growth . . . and/or supremacy . . . the political and ideological questions arise. First and foremost is "under what conditions is the bourgeois counterrevolution not possible."  This is not to be confused with the economic issue called the law of uneven development because this operates in every mode of production in human history and drives the logic of imperial assertion.   In other words I read the article and it contains nothing new or insightful for Marxists and is simply more of the anti-China propaganda. It does contain another level of bourgeois democratic American melancholy.   The story of the 18 year old boy killing himself for lacking tuition to college would almost be laughable in America if taken to our own working class. I have not a clue what the 1.5 billion people in China think of this incident. Ask the workers in American what they think about a boy in China killing himself over college tuition.   "Boy Kills himself because he cannot afford College."   Hell . . . I thought about killing two of my own damn kids about college tuition. The question of socialism and education is not misunderstood . . . but rather what is being resisted is political panhandling.   This is the lead in to an economic analysis of China. I do not care because one boy in a county of 1.5 billion people jumped in front of a train . . . I do not care and this is the stuff of liberals and political hooligans throwing sand in the eyes of our workers. Take this issue to the American workers and let them express themselves.   Why should I care . . . when million die of starvation.   It gets deeper and here is the anti-China thread always a part of the authors articles and ideology . . . which is no more than rotten chauvinism.   >>The rapid take off in China, especially in the high tech arena, has a lot to do with the rapid influx of foreign capital. Foreign-based companies accounted for 81 percent of all high tech exports in 2000. This means that Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea are all feeling the pinch. While some economists, including some progressives, view China as a locomotive for growth in the region, Marty and Paul remain unconvinced.   In Malaysia, for example, 16,000 jobs have disappeared from the country's high tech production hub as new investment flows to China. A J.P Morgan report states that China's growth in high technology has "eroded" Singapore's status as an electronics exporter. South Korea has found it profitable to relocate in China as well where militant unionized workers are not a problem. Samsung, Daewoo and LG Electronics now make half their goods outside of Korea, many in China.<<   Reread these two paragraphs.   What they say is that the plight of the workers in Sinapore and South Korea is the result of China and not the bourgeois politics and policies of their own bourgeoisie.   Read what is being stated.   I do not have any inclination to support the bourgeoisie of any country . . . and China is most certainly not the villain of the South Korean masses.   Read what is being stated.   There are other profound questions bound up with the evolution of the social revolution in China. The complexity of the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society . . . the basis of class divisions . . . and defeating the bourgeois and petty bourgeois impulses on the ideological level is very important. I have volumes to write about this . . . but am limited to defeating my own petty bourgeois ideologists who make their living by selling their brand of Marxism.   China did not under develop SOuth Korea and this is what is written.   Read what is being stated.   My beef with the critics of China is that they trend to uniformly be from a hostile class to the proletariat and those of them over 50 have an extended history of anti-China policy.   There is nothing new or interesting in this material . . . other than some 18 year old boy became demoralized enough to kill himself because ... get this . . . he could not go to college. If kids in America thought like this 75% of our youth would kill themselves.   You do not kill yourself over not being about to go to college . . . or getting the right girl . . . or being able to get the "right job" . . . or blowing your savings at the crap table.   In other words Lou article lost much of its force . . . concerning economic data . . . over crying about a useless suicide by a youth that would be the laughing stock in America.   One might can get a perspective by seeking out the poem "A Dream Deferred."   Melvin P.