(I am forwarding this to the 3 lists that Jim posts to, but the response is to feedback he got on PEN-L that you can read at: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2005w33/date.htm)
Dear Friends, I appreciated the responses from Marty, Michael P and Michael L. I start with the premise that socialism is a long protracted and very non-linear process of building, consolidating and protecting the dictatorship of the proletariat and creating the material conditions for the progressive elimination of non-socialist institutions, categories of conceptualization, practices, values, paradigms, forms of consciousness and relations. I also start with the premise that capitalist relations, categories, values, institutions and practices will survive for extended periods under socialism as history, and present-day conditions, threats, constraints, imperatives, unsatisfied needs of the masses, contradictions and uneven levels of development cannot be simply assumed away or eliminated with the snap of a finger. I also start with the premise that socialism, unlike previous modes of production that exist and interact within pre-socialist social formations (as remnants of older dying modes of production and/or as embryo forms of emerging modes of production within each social formation characterized on the basis of which is the dominant mode of production within that overall social formation) do not gradually emerge within the womb of the old order (as slavery emerged within the womb of primitive communalism or as feudalism emerged within the womb of slavery or as capitalism emerged within the womb of feudalism) but rather as a result of a dramatic juncture and transformation of the class nature of the state. In short, it is not the extent of planning versus market-based institutions, or the extent of state involvement in the economy (also possible and even extensive under some regimes of fascism and welfare-state capitalism) that fundamentally delineates capitalism from socialism, but rather, it is the class nature of the state and guiding Party of the state that is decisive. In the cases of both China and Cuba, even as the respective states have allowed widening and deepening capitalist relations and institutions under various banners or rationales--tactical compromise to the the imperatives of increasing integration and trade within a global economy dominated by and run on the basis of capitalist institutions, relations and categories; the imperatives to rapidly develop productive forces and address myriad and immediate material and survival needs of the masses whose survival and participation are necessary for building socialism and who may be turned into reactionary elements if their basic needs are not met by socialism--even in tactical compromise with capitalism; depriving imperialist powers of some of their usual rationales for ongoing imperialist encirclement, threats of nuclear annihilation, embargos etc--the same rationales employed by Lenin to justify the NEP which he honestly characterized as a "tactical retreat"--even as all of this is going on, the respective states of Cuba and China have not only reiterated openly that Marxism-Leninism is the guiding system of praxis-theory of the State and CP, they have also undertaken increasing dissemination of Marxist-Leninist classics and overall ideological education; question: why would essentially "capitalist roaders", intent on the "full restoration" of capitalism, undertake to promote literature and education in the Marxist-Leninist classics that would ultimately expose "their true capitalist natures, 'treachery' and ultimate intents"? Are they just plain stupid, daring (in their camouflage) or irrational? Secondly, in the case of both Cuba and China, in their respective CPs, not only is anti-capitalist ideological education being widened and deepened within the respective CPs, and not only are CP memberships and members being scrutinized for real as opposed to nominal "Redness", and not only is training in basic Marxism-Leninism being expanded within various levels of educational curricula, but on the international front, both Cuba and China have been increasingly active in exposing and attacking various forms of intrigue and global warfare by U.S. imperialism that not only seeks to export more capital and capitalism to China, but also maintains embargos against China and Cuba--although against Cuba to a greater extent. Why is it that in the case of China, as well as Cuba, the U.S. imperialists are clearly not buying it that the Chinese and Cuban governments and CPs intend, as some have alleged, to restore and are restoring full-blown capitalism? Why do the internal documents of U.S. imperialism speak of the "Chinese road to socialism" as a future and long-term strategic threat? I try to imagine what positions I would take if I were a member of the Communist Party or Government of China given the history, legacies, present-day conditions, miserable conditions of many sections of the masses, low levels of development of some productive forces, population size relative to resource base, imperialist encirclements and threats of nuclear annihilation--along with numerous examples like Iraq of how reckless a sociopath-led imperialist state is prepared to be and how far that state is prepared to go in imperialist adventurism and in seeking unipolar global hegemony. The tactical and strategic balancing acts required defy the most sophisticated "operations theory", computers and computer programming. I know from our own examples, a very tiny nation on the verge of total extinction as a nation--the Blackfoot Nation--that when we get ideologically purer-than-pure and act openly purer-than-pure, without regard to the concrete conditions, constraints, balances of power and capabilities of the enemy, without regard to the often necessary imperative for tactical compromise--and even outright retreat sometimes--for the purposes of hopefully strategic advance, that it is the poorest of the poor, on the verge of extinction, that pay the highest price for our theoretical or practical purity. True enough, sometimes what looks like one step backward for the purposes of two steps forward winds up as two steps backward for each one step forward--the world and information about it are more often than not very imperfect and not all are what they claim to be or not all is what it seems to be. Yes, when I was in China, I saw imported and emerging capitalist institutions, practices, values and relations--both imported and domestic--that turned my stomach. I was particularly incensed to see a bunch of fucking Mormons from BYU doing an exchange. My paper, "Socialist Revolutionary Consciousness as a Material Force" and "On the Social Capital of Capitalism and/versus Socialist Construction" that I gave openly at Tsinghua University, was an open attack on neo-liberalism as nothing but neo-imperialism as well as against the particular "Deng Xiao Ping de hei mao bai mao bi yu" (Black Cat/White Cat Metaphor of Deng Xiao Ping) and that talk was not only not censored in any way but was openly embraced including by Party members. The small gang of neo-liberals at Tsinghua and at Beijing University would not come out to debate and it turns out that they are not as strong or numerous as some think. I openly advanced the position that capitalism and socialism are not simply two cats (or systems) of a different color, each of which has advantages and disadvantages relative to particular needs to be met, but, rather, are fundamentally contradictory, antagonistic and mortal enemies as each of which can only survive on the basis of the progressive demise and general refutation of the other. But to say that China--or Cuba--are restoring or have restored full-blown capitalism is to say that the respective Communist Parties of China and Cuba are not real Communist Parties, are not led by real Communists and or are led by seriously uniformed and incorrect Communists, and are merely employing ersatz socialism to build capitalism rather than necessary forms of and retreats to--and in some cases not necessary and even mistaken forms of--capitalism in order to strategically build socialism under unique conditions and in the face of unique and very fatal domestic and global threats to the survival of the whole nation. From my discussions in China (and I was armed with all sorts of literature such as Charles Bettleheim's two volumes of Class Struggles in the USSR, Chussodovsky's book on the alleged restoration of capitalism in China, Monthly Review articles from the early 1970s on on the question of restoration of capitalism in China etc) which they made copies of and we discussed in detail, I am not yet convinced that what we are seeing--and what the CP and government of China or Cuba--intend, is anything like the restoration of capitalism, the extinction of the Communist Party or the transformation of the State from dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of monopoly capital. That is my view at present and of course, as always, my mind is wide open to evidence and this is something I give a great deal of thought to as I fear continuously if I am wrong and who or what I might be objectively supporting if I am wrong. My last lecture at Tsinghua, entitled Capitalism versus Socialism: Which will Win?" I noted that if capitalism does not destroy the whole earth, a very distinct possibility if not probability, only Socialism must win as only socialism can address and protect the fundamental interests and needs of the broad masses against the tyrannical few--as opposed to capitalism which is about protecting the fundamental interests and needs of the tyrannical few against those of the broad masses. One of the students asked me if socialism was "heaven" and I noted no, and it can be like hell in the sense that the dying classes of the old order will fight with everything they have to prevent losses of power and wealth and leaving the stage of history plus, under socialism, we need not only fight against forces of reaction outside of ourselves, we need to fight against those forces inside of ourselves as well; this can be a form of hell for some. My best to all of you. Jim James M. Craven Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo-i'poyi Professor/Consultant,Economics;Business Division Chair Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. USA 98663 Tel: (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Josef Stalin <http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/>http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com Employer has no association with private/protected opinion FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!
