Yoshie, responding to Marvin, writes: ......
As I noted earlier on Louis Proyect's list, the context in which these moves are being made can't be ignored. Apart from concerns about urban and rural social unrest, the Chinese leadership wants to become less dependent on export-led growth by rapid development of the home market, which requires stimulating domestic demand. ....
............................................
At this point, few suppose China has any socialist character. What's at stake is the quality of capitalist development: "He has campaigned doggedly to reduce the party's addiction to state- backed investment projects, politically driven expansion of industry and infrastructure, and conversion of state- owned land for speculative real estate development....
Let's especially think of the all-important fine print: this only applies to foreign firms (and likely only when and where the regime chooses or can enforce the proposal). Yoshie pointed out that there are political power struggles going on. If one thinks of 3 rival groups of social forces: those tied into the "old" system, those involved in the new foreign owned enterprises, and those supportive of a "patriotic national bourgosie" approach, then this does seem pretty transparent. There are some important forks in the road ahead between a comprador-export or a national-based approaches. Since the Chinese have a keen awareness of having been down that road before, it is hard to think they are not anticipating the upcoming hard choices. Everyone has studied the May 4th movement, etc. And having an organized (but not independent or autonomous) force of elite workers at foreign firms may prove to be a useful ally in the upcoming *domestic* political struggles. [Foreign policy was probably not an important factor, but someone must have also noticed that it would be terribly handy to have this issue to hoist whenever foreigner governments get on their high horse over human rights in China.] Paul
