For those interested in keeping up on the political dynamics
surrounding/generated by recent Chinese labor struggles, I would
recommend reading the public letter issued by Li Chengrui (Former
Director of the State Statistic Bureau), Gong Xiantian (Professor of
Beijing University), Han Xiya (Former Alternate Secretary of the
Secretariat of All-China Federation of Trade Unions), Liu Rixin (Former
Researcher at the State Planning Commission), and Zhao Guangwu
(Professor at Beijing University).
The letter seeks to expand the agenda from defending labor rights, or
even the establishment of independent unions, to one that encompasses
the entire trajectory of the country's current political-economy. For
example, in point five they say: "*we call for the restoration of the
working class as the leading class of our country and the
re-establishment of socialist public ownership as the mainstay in our
national economy*."
The letter can be read at:
http://chinastudygroup.net/2010/06/old-revolutionaries-on-the-present-upsurge/
As for Lou's recent post, asking for more information about my claim
that many of those on the left continue to be remarkably supportive of
the current regime and its policies, let me put it this way: in my
experience, when I now ask progressives or leftists whether they think
that China is socialist, the great majority say no. But when I offer
sharp criticism of Chinese state policy, I immediately run into heated
disagreement. In short, a significant minority, and perhaps even a
majority continue to defend the regime and its policies.
For example, many will complement the Chinese state on how it has
handled transnational investment, claiming that it has regulated and
shaped it in ways positive for the economy. Many will also praise the
Chinese state for the way it has conducted its process of privatization,
claiming that it has been achieved without compromising state control
over accumulation dynamics, thereby assuring efficiency and well-rounded
national development. Most also continue to praise the country's
export-led growth strategy, arguing that its success highlights the
wisdom of the state's market reform strategy. Many also argue that in
broad terms, the great majority of workers have also gained in terms of
new opportunities, full employment, etc.
In sum, one sees very few left critiques of the Chinese growth strategy
or the outcomes of that strategy with two growing exceptions: its
environmental consequences and the nature of its overseas investment in
Africa.
This experience was reinforced for me by recent postings on the Honda
strike in China, many of which considered the labor actions through the
lens of Chinese state policy, in which posters wondered whether the
unrest had the backing of the Chinese state (illustrated by Chinese
media publicity) to force companies to increase wages---either because
it was good economics to boost domestic demand or because it was because
the Party was truly concerned with the well-being of its working
population. In the broadest sense, the posters appeared (to me) willing
to consider the Chinese state above the class fray, still committed to
and capable of promoting policies in the "national" interest (an
assumption that is not made when talking about the US state for example).
Missing is a framework in which the Chinese state is seen as promoting,
in response to party desires, a growth strategy that has transformed
China into a brutal capitalist regime, in which Chinese economic
activity serves as an anchor for a transnational capitalist controlled
East Asian production network, the consequences of which are
increasingly negative for the majority of workers in China, East Asia,
and beyond.
Marty
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
