I just want to add a brief comment on the China discussion. I certainly agree with Jim C. and Louis P. that China is not a fascist country. That said, as Jim noted in his message, he and I do disagree on what is in fact happening in China. I respect Jim a lot and always read what he writes with great care because he is a very thoughtful analyst and his work always offers important insights. Still I do want to offer my own perspective on developments in China, hopefully for the benefit of the broader discussion.
I have also been to China several times and always kindly received. And I have found divergent opinions on what is happening to China, including workers and scholars who are very opposed to what they see as a gradual dismantling of the socialist project. I have been at conferences where migrant workers told off party officials and academics called for reforms that would benefit independent labor activity. At issue for me, however, are the actual trends shaping the Chinese political economy. In Paul and my essay for Monthly Review, we were careful to try and discuss the structural rather than personal factors underlying trends, trends that we found alarming. For example, the trend for markets to replace rather than support planning, the trend for private enterprises to replace rather than compliment state enterprises, the trend for production for export rather than the domestic market to become the leading/driving force, the trend for foreign ownership to increasingly dominate rather than reinvigorate key economic sectors. All of these trends add up to a major shift in the Chinese economy. And these trends, towards private production, shaped by market forces, for export all came with, and required, fundamental changes in the way workers were treated. The fact is that capitalist restoration can be seen most clearly in the treatment of workers and their resulting conditions, developments that cannot be considered separate from the above trends. I am not claiming that the Chinese economy has not grown or been transformed, or that all people have suffered from the process. In fact a large middle class has emerged enjoying new riches and possibilities. But it is clear to me that the dynamics of the Chinese growth process are not compatible with socialism, and that those dynamics have gone far enough that we need to talk of the Chinese economy as shaped by capitalism. And not surprisingly, a growing majority of workers are greatly suffering from instability and a loss of work and social services and health and safety on the job, etc. That is true even though their resistance has been so far scattered and partial. The fact that there is resistance and in many quarters an openness to talk about the negative consequences of these trends is a good sign but does not refute the trends or their collective implications. Paul and I wrote in Monthly Review about them precisely because we feel that it is important for progressive to speak out against them, to strengthen the hands of those who resist them. We also wrote because we think that the Chinese growth model is seriously flawed, suffering from its own contradictions which are embedded in a broader regional and global web of imbalances. Thus, there is trouble ahead for working people in China and East Asia, and that trouble becomes more and more serious the longer the Chinese growth process continues. China has radically changed and it does not help our or their cause to continue to view the Chinese growth strategy as a meaningful alternative to capitalism. Rather we need to acknowledge that regardless of initial intentions it has led China back into capitalism. Marty Hart-Landsberg On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Craven, Jim wrote: > Louis Proyect writes: > > "Fascist countries don't invite radical professors like Jim Craven to > give talks at conferences. Fascism is a totalitarian system that > controls every last aspect of a citizen's life and demands blind > obedience to an ultra-nationalist regime bent on an expansionist course. > This hardly describes China." > > > J. R. wrote: > First of all, not all fascist regimes are the same as they all vary in > degree of oppression and methods. Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political > scientist wrote: /The 14 Characteristic of Fascism > (http://www.1hope.org/fascism.htm ), but, it seems to me not all > characteristics are needed to qualify as fascist. > > Louis Proyect responds: > > Dr. Britt is a self-described "humanist". He says that the failure to > investigate the plane crash of Paul Wellstone is proof that the USA is > fascist. This is not worth replying to. Comrade Rosso, have you ever > read Marxist literature on fascism? Much of it is online at > www.marxists.org and will cost you nothing except time that would be > well-spent. > > > > Response (Jim C) This is a response to Louis. A response to this > individual calling China "fascist" would not be time well spent; the > problem is not only what he does not know, but more importantly, the > problem appears to be what he apparently knows for sure that just ain't > so. He either does not understand what fascism is about and/or does not > understand what China is about. > > Before I left for China, I sent some materials on my background to those > who had invited me. Why? For several reasons. First of all I did not > want to abuse the hospitality of those who had invited me with my coming > to a conference at which my own views--and activist background--might be > seen as very controversial and possibly bring some hardship to those who > had so kindly invited me. Further, I gave the proposed title of my paper > and an abstract but no one asked to see my proposed paper before leaving > for China. Again, I sent my paper in advance in the event that my > comments might cause some conference-disrupting responses and/or bring > some hardships to those who had invited me. Again, there was no negative > response to my proposed comments. And at the conference no one tried to > censor me, no one tried to tell me what language to use and no one tried > to inhibit my comments (decidedly anti-capitalist) about the dangers of > widespread expansion of capitalist markets, institutions, categories, > relations and values in China--dangers vis-a-vis the ongoing socialist > construction, protection of existing levels of socialist construction > and development of mass socialist consciousness. > > Further, I asked if it would be possible to visit the mausoleum of > Chairman Mao and the grave of Dr. Norman Bethune (Pai Chu En) as it had > been my dream to visit and pay respects at the graves of these two who > had influenced my own life and views so much--as is the Blackfoot Way to > visit, at least once, the graves of those we respect and who have > influenced us in our lives. They went out of their way to help me to pay > these respects knowing exactly where I was coming from. I even sent some > protest letters against my own college for repression I had suffered and > copies of the case I am involved with in Canada charging the Canadian > government with genocide against Indigenous Peoples just so that they > would be aware of some of the controversies I had been involved with/am > involved with so that those who had invited me would not be caused an > embarrassment or problems for having invited me. Again, I was invited > and while in China treated with the utmost respect and kindness while > there. > > While in China I had extensive discussions with some first-rate Chinese > scholars and academicians who, of course, came from a variety of > theoretical perspectives. But the discussions were open, frank and > extremely insightful. The organizers were even prepared for me to > convene a workshop and invite Marty Hart-Landsberg (a friend of mine > whom I respect and whose work as an economist I respect but with whom I > disagree on the question of capitalism having been restored in China), > Paul Burkett and others to debate, at the conference, with Chinese > scholars, the issue of whether or not capitalism has been and/or is > being restored in China. This would not be possible if China had moved > to fascism and/or even had restored capitalism. > > Calling China fascist, especially when considering all that China has > suffered and continues to suffer under the yokes of imperialism and > fascism--imperial encirclement and destabilization (social systems > engineering) campaigns, denial of critical technologies and life-saving > food and medicines, threats of nuclear annihilation, protection of > Japanese Class-A war criminals from prosecution in return for use of > their barbaric "research" from the likes of Unit 731, etc etc etc--is a > horrible slander and slur against a People who have come so far despite > such overwhelming odds and despite such barbaric and lethal imperialist > and fascist forces bent on sabotaging socialist construction in China. > > Jim Craven >
