Re: China and socialism
Chris Doss wrote: For the NYT or WP, everything bad that happens in China or Russia is the result of a nefarious plot hatched in Beijing or Moscow. For the life of me I can't understand why people who would be hypersceptical over these papers' coverage of, say, Venezuela cite them as impeachable sources on other parts of the world. Louis Proyect replied: This comes as no surprise. C'mon, cut it out. If you aren't surprised, then perhaps you should not answer at all? End the dialogue? Work to end his verbal oppression through action? Refuse to consent to his comment? Overcome? Yet you continue: You have stated publicly on LBO-Talk that censorship was not a problem in the USSR and that people could read whatever they want. You also quote liberally from the , which fails to meet Rupert Murdoch's standards by all accounts. Putinite press -- You quote from all kinds of things, yourself, Louis. As suits your needs. The news media is not monolithic. The owners are. Because you've never been published in newsmedia, you may not understand the pressure. The staff are just like other workers. So spare me your blanket generalizations. the Monthly Review article I was reviewing Another book report from Louis. (No need, here, of course, for blanket generalizations here about the class of people contributing to the Monthly Review.) Finally, it does not surprise me that you would take the side of the Chinese government against an investigative piece that ran in the NY Times. Heh. It doesn't surprise me you like the NY Times. You liberal, you. :) Ken. -- He couldn't figure out how to pour piss from a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. -- Lyndon Johnson
Re: China and socialism
I . . .uhhEye against IFlesh of my flesh and Mind of my mind.Two of a kind but one won't survive.The image is reflect in my enemy eyes and my image is reflect in his the same time. Right here is where the end gonna start at.Conflict . . . contact . . . call back.Fighter stand where the land is marked at . . .Settle the dispute about who the livest. . . Free world says who ever survive this. Only one of us can arrive foreverSo you and I can't ride together.We can't live or die together . . .All we can do is collide together.So I skillfully apply the pressure . . . won't stop til i'm forever.ONE!A door step where death never comesSpread across time . . . til my time never done.And I'm never doneWalk tall why . . . every run . . .When they moveth . . . I ever come.Bad man never fret warGeneral we have the stock the mad fire burn. I . . .uhhEye against IFlesh of my flesh and Mind of my mind.Two of a kind but one won't survive.The image is reflect in my enemy eyes and my image is reflect in his the same time. Who am IOne man squadron Man stir the fire that snatches your tomorrow.The thousand yard spear that pierces your armor . . .YOU CAN GET IT ON RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANT TO.But when you front now . . .get marched throughI warned you.You know who forever belongs to. Mos Def : Eye againt I . . . theme to Blade 2
Re: China and socialism
I would never have read this if it hadn't been referenced by Kenneth. You have stated publicly on LBO-Talk that censorship was not a problem in the USSR and that people could read whatever they want. You also quote liberally from the , which fails to meet Rupert Murdoch's standards by all accounts Virtually nothing was banned in the USSR. It was not imported or printed, but that is not the same thing. Just ask Wojtek Sokolowski. The same was true in Poland. What does it mean to quote liberally from the ,? __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: China and socialism
Putinite press -- You quote from all kinds of things, yourself, Louis. - How does somebody who doesn't read Russian know jack shit about the Russian press, Putinite are otherwise? How lame. That's not how the Russian media work. Anyway that's my last word on the subject. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: China and socialism
All right, one final word and then I am outta here. The inanity of that statement is breathtaking. I worked for the Russia Journal for three years. (Actually I am somewhat proud of the fact that the eXile praised my editorials. That's pretty rare.) I think I know how the Russian media work. Putinoid. How lame. How New York Times. --- Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Putinite press -- You quote from all kinds of things, yourself, Louis. - How does somebody who doesn't read Russian know jack shit about the Russian press, Putinite are otherwise? How lame. That's not how the Russian media work. Anyway that's my last word on the subject. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: China and socialism
Chris Doss wrote: Virtually nothing was banned in the USSR. The Washington Post July 20, 2002 Saturday Soviet Dissident Alexander Ginzburg Dies BYLINE: Martin Weil, Washington Post Staff Writer Alexander Ginzburg, 65, who was persecuted, imprisoned and exiled as a leader of the dissident intellectual movement that worked for human rights and individual freedom in the Soviet Union, died July 19 in Paris. Mr. Ginzburg is often credited with being a founder of the Samizdat, or self-publishing movement, by which intellectuals put forward their ideas and challenged government repression. The Associated Press attributed reports of Mr. Ginzburg's death to Russian news accounts. No cause of death was given. After being expelled from the Soviet Union, Mr. Ginzburg came first to the United States, and then made France a base for writing, lecturing and worldwide campaigning. The courage and dedication of the dissident movement -- including such figures as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nathan Shcharansky and Andrei Sakharov -- have been described as important to the ultimate downfall of Soviet communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Individual loose sheets -- often poetry, typed, handwritten and copied by duplicating machine -- began appearing in Moscow a few years after Stalin's death. Mr. Ginzburg, was credited with the creation in 1960 of what was considered the first magazine to circumvent the Soviet government's publishing monopoly. The magazine's name has been translated as Syntax, or Syntaxis, and on its pages appeared underground intellectuals, writers and poets not officially sanctioned by the government, taking sly aim, through literary techniques, at some of the abuses and hypocrisies of the Soviet regime. It lasted only a few issues, but the authorities recognized Mr. Ginzburg's work with a two-year prison sentence. In 1965, dissident writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel were arrested, and they went on trial the next year. In the White Book, Mr. Ginzburg offered an account of what the dissidents viewed as a blatantly political prosecution. This drew greater worldwide attention to Soviet repression and helped amplify the voices of the dissidents. For Mr. Ginzburg, it brought a closed trial and new five-year prison term. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
End of thread! Why can you just discuss things without getting nasty and bringing up material from other lists? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: China and socialism
Thanks LP for posting the review of Hart-Landsberg and Burkett's long MR piece. I just picked up a copy yesterday, and have been looking it over. I've got my own little quibbles with it (not enough emphasis on rural China, which I think is desperately important right now, they lump pre-1976 China together as 'Maoist' China, etc.), but personally I think it's a very welcome and timely piece. I hope it continues to spark debate and interest. Many of the (reposted) digs against Hart-Landsberg and Burkett seem wildly off the mark. The duo are mainly concerned about people using China as a progressive model of development. Few in the US do, but I think there is a growing sense in other parts of the world that China offers a viable alternative to neoliberalism. Particularly when China works together with Brazil and other countries in the Group of 77. Stiglitz seems to be in this category, and you'll find lots of this in UN orgs and other wonky progressive orgs. To counter this, Hart-Landsberg and Burkett try to show how bad things are in China for the working class. It's not the whole story, but it's hard to deny, and it's only going to get worse. I think we should be getting ready for this debate. When these kind of news stories - see below - appear (and we're only hearing about this one because one of the villagers was able to get to the internet), perhaps we should pause and look a bit closer at what's going on. The way that these contradictions are either displaced, resolved, or sublated will have, IMO, a wide-reaching influence on how the 21st Century plays out, just as they did last century. Jonathan - Villagers vow to fight on in face of police assault Joint owners want to overturn the sale of 150 hectares worth 40 million yuan SCMP | 3 aug Villagers in Henan province vowed to continue their fight for justice after police intervened at the weekend to quell their protest over land sales, leaving several people injured and four detained. What we ask for is simple: return our land and punish the corrupt village officials, said a villager surnamed Liu, whose mother was injured in the raid and was being treated yesterday for gunshot wounds. Mr Liu, 22, said the district government had sent about 400 officials to Shijiahe village in Zhengzhou city to try to stop the villagers from petitioning. About 600 police armed with tear gas, shotguns, dogs and electric batons raided the village last Saturday looking for the organisers of protests against land sales approved by village head Liu Guo-zhao. At least 30 people were injured and four detained in the incident, Mr Liu said. Most of the injured cannot even afford to go to hospital. Villagers strongly opposed the land deal, which involved 150 hectares of farmland worth up to 40 million yuan and owned by more than 6,000 of them, Mr Liu said. They had protested since June and sent their petitions to the city and provincial governments but had not received any response. A district government team went to the village about three weeks ago after villagers threatened to hold a protest in Beijing. The incident police raid happened on the same day the team had promised to release an investigation result, Mr Liu said. The team disappeared from the village before the police arrived. He said local government representatives had visited his mother, one of the four still in hospital. It was merely a show. They did not even bother to visit the other victims who were in other wards, he said. They tried to give my mother 1,000 yuan for medical care, but we refused to accept it because we knew their real intention was to stop us from petitioning any further. My mother said, 'We don't need your money now. Let us wait until the problem is resolved'. Mr Liu, who works in Zhengzhou, posted a report of the incident and his mobile phone number on an overseas Chinese website on Sunday. He said yesterday that internet police had phoned him and he dared not return home for fear of further police harassment. An official from the Huiji district government publicity department confirmed that a group of officials had been sent to Shijiahe village to deal with the dispute. Most of our staff from the relevant departments are in the village now, he said. They have been working on the dispute ever since it started. The incident is still under investigation ... and things are going in the right direction. The official denied a report that the village head had been placed in shuanggui, a disciplinary measure outside the regular legal system under which party members are detained and interrogated. A Zhengzhou city government spokeswoman said the fact that no local media had covered the story proved the sensitivity of the case. We cannot give any comment, not because it is a secret; we need time to clarify the facts, she said.
Re: China and socialism
Jonathan Lassen wrote: When these kind of news stories - see below - appear (and we're only hearing about this one because one of the villagers was able to get to the internet), perhaps we should pause and look a bit closer at what's going on. The way that these Contradictions are either displaced, resolved, or sublated will have, IMO, a wide-reaching influence on how the 21st Century plays out, just as they did last century. Jonathan - Villagers vow to fight on in face of police assault Joint owners want to overturn the sale of 150 hectares worth 40 million yuan SCMP | 3 aug Villagers in Henan province vowed to continue their fight for justice after police intervened at the weekend to quell their protest over land sales, leaving several people injured and four detained. Is this particular story emblematic of the restoration of capitalism, though? Isn't it true that this kind of event took place in pre-reform China -- and not necessarily to benefit the working and toiling classes? We expect to see it in capitalist countries, of course. In a socialist country, however, where the working class is the dominant social strata, one might expect it not to happen. My question is, to what extent is political repression in China the result of a one-party system that had/s(?) the tendency to disallow dissenting opinions and/or the insistence on a single path to socialism (if that kind of rhetoric is allowable), or a political culture (not meant in the anthropological sense) generated by a cultural-revolution-type atmosphere rather than a restoration of capitalism? I think some parallels are easily made with the Soviet Union and the means to an end mentality of some on the left in that one-party system, considering that it doesn't exist anymore. Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: China and socialism
Joel Wendland wrote: Is this particular story emblematic of the restoration of capitalism, though? Isn't it true that this kind of event took place in pre-reform China -- and not necessarily to benefit the working and toiling classes? We expect to see it in capitalist countries, of course. The pre-reform, post-revolutionary state in China did not resort to organized violence in order secure land for industrial purposes. They had sufficient legitimacy and power so that violence was not necessary. The violence associated with land grabs is very much a recent problem, developing since the late 90s as far as I know. In a socialist country, however, where the working class is the dominant social strata, one might expect it not to happen. China's working class may be the majority in urban China, but I don't think anyone would consider them dominant. My question is, to what extent is political repression in China the result of a one-party system that had/s(?) the tendency to disallow dissenting opinions and/or the insistence on a single path to socialism (if that kind of rhetoric is allowable), or a political culture (not meant in the anthropological sense) generated by a cultural-revolution-type atmosphere rather than a restoration of capitalism? I don't think you can separate the current development/restoration of capitalism and repression in China. People living in non-capitalist social relations have to be drawn kicking and screaming into the loving embrace of the 'market.' Chinese farmers don't want to be locked cages and thrown back into the 19th century. The corrupt bureaucratic class of China's countryside is the underground pump for the sea of factories that produce an increasingly large chunk of social materiality on this planet. This can only be accomplished under the most ruthless of dictatorships, regardless of the appearence of the political system. The current 'political culture' in China has been generated by the Cultural Revolution only in a negative way. Dengism was the conscious rejection of everything Maoist, particularly the Cultural Revolution. It emerged as the victorious ideology only after Mao's death, and the failure of the Cultural Revolution. Cheers, Jonathan
Re: China and socialism
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. -- For the NYT or WP, everything bad that happens in China or Russia is the result of a nefarious plot hatched in Beijing or Moscow. For the life of me I can't understand why people who would be hypersceptical over these papers' coverage of, say, Venezuela cite them as impeachable sources on other parts of the world. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: China and socialism
There are also reports of college students who jumped from high-rise dormitory buildings in protest of the governments timid "peaceful" policy over Taiwan independence. The suicide-protestors wanted the government to take Taiwan for force right now and stand up to US bullying. The report that an 18-year-old killed himself over lack of money to pay college fees proves only that 18-year-olds need better counseling. The fact of the matter is that 18-year-olds all over the world flirt with suicide for all kind of reasons, much of which tragically irrational and childish. As for whether China would be a good model for the rest of the Third World, let the people of the Third World decide for themselves. We don't need self-righteous academics in the West to pronounce what is an ideologically correct model for the Third World. The sad fact is that the Western left have done little for the Third World beyond destructive talk. Until members of the Western Left can control their own imperialists governments and improve the lot of the poor in their own societies, they had better be a bit more humble about what is correct. There is a lot about China that is not perfect and a lot of people within China are trying very hard to correct these problems. But believe me, poverty for all is a bad trade-off for ideological purity. The NY Times also printed other articles on China recently: The advent of the vacation is a relatively new phenomenon in China that coincides with the emergence of a new middle class with disposable income. Wealthy Chinese are now flocking to destinations around Southeast Asia and beyond. Others are exploring domestic sites like Qingdao, a popular getaway for people from Beijing. http://nytimes.com/2004/07/30/international/asia/30qing.html?adxnnl=1adxnnlx=1091444128-2e9057b7RGa7p+S9Pv+yyg New Boomtowns Change Path of China's Growth http://nytimes.com/2004/07/28/international/asia/28china.html South China Morning Post (HK) 7/30/04 More are becoming upwardly mobile, but birth still counts Mainlanders' chances of social advancement through merit have improved in the past two decades, but birth still matters for those aiming for political careers. A report on social mobility by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences released yesterday shows it is getting easier for mainlanders to upgrade their status within one generation. Before 1980, only 32 per cent of the workforce was able to find a job better than their fathers'. More than 60 per cent had no choice but to accept their parents' station. Since then, however, 40 per cent of working people have managed to advance professionally. Mainlanders are also changing between jobs more frequently that before. Before 1980, 86 per cent of the labour force never changed jobs throughout their working life. But from 1990 to 2000, 54 per cent took their chances and ventured out to seek new jobs. "The rapid development of the economy has created more occupational professions, and many of them are of high level," the report said. "The economic reform policy provides an institutional environment where people can improve their social class on their capabilities and merit. "As a result, Chinese society is becoming more open and mobile." But the report noted it was unlikely that a Bill Clinton or John Edwards - who were born into working-class families but rose to political prominence - would appear in China. To enter the "government official" occupational category, family background remains the determining factor. For every 100 people whose fathers are cadres, seven become government officials themselves. For workers, the ratio is one in 100; for farmers, even less than one. The work mainlanders covet the most is in "government and social administration", based on decades of polling by the academy. People tend to think this public service position will bring them power, the report says: "Without any doubts, cadres are the most powerful people in the country." But for those whose aspirations lie outside the political scope, their fates seem more in their own hands. Educational credentials rank as the No1 factor for a good career, the report says. College graduates have three times more opportunities in the job market than those who only have high school diplomas, even though the latter might come from better family backgrounds. But for well-educated rural people, prospects are less rosy. The urban registration system, which works to prevent rural people from moving freely into urban areas, still limits their work prospects. Three years ago, the academy caused an uproar when it published a study on how the composition of Chinese society had changed over the decades. It was seen by analysts as an effort by the leadership to embrace the rising private sector. But the study confirmed that the social status of farmers and workers had declined significantly
Re: China and socialism
Chris Doss wrote: For the NYT or WP, everything bad that happens in China or Russia is the result of a nefarious plot hatched in Beijing or Moscow. For the life of me I can't understand why people who would be hypersceptical over these papers' coverage of, say, Venezuela cite them as impeachable sources on other parts of the world. This comes as no surprise. You have stated publicly on LBO-Talk that censorship was not a problem in the USSR and that people could read whatever they want. You also quote liberally from the Putinite press, which fails to meet Rupert Murdoch's standards by all accounts. In fact, the Monthly Review article I was reviewing includes a bunch of tables in the appendix that confirms the NY Times report. Those tables are from reliable sources. Finally, it does not surprise me that you would take the side of the Chinese government against an investigative piece that ran in the NY Times. This appears to be part of a pattern of defending whatever Russia, India and China deem necessary in their scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
The problem, unfortunately, is there has never been anything other than a scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations --anywhere, ever. Therefore, the issue becomes: is such a march historically progressive, despite the human toll? Marx, of course, answered in the affirmative in relation to pre-existing modes of development. You know all this. Marx wasn't around to witness the failed experiments to leap over the capitalist stage in both China and the USSR in the 20th century. I now think he may well have repudiated these efforts, especially on seeing the outcome, and interpreted the reversion to capitalism in each instance as consistent with his theory. He was not ammoral and would have condemned the massive social cost, but the moral dimension would have been subordinate to his analysis, and I expect also that he would have seen the Stalinist interlude as an effect rather than cause of these historical developments. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] China and socialism Chris Doss wrote: For the NYT or WP, everything bad that happens in China or Russia is the result of a nefarious plot hatched in Beijing or Moscow. For the life of me I can't understand why people who would be hypersceptical over these papers' coverage of, say, Venezuela cite them as impeachable sources on other parts of the world. This comes as no surprise. You have stated publicly on LBO-Talk that censorship was not a problem in the USSR and that people could read whatever they want. You also quote liberally from the Putinite press, which fails to meet Rupert Murdoch's standards by all accounts. In fact, the Monthly Review article I was reviewing includes a bunch of tables in the appendix that confirms the NY Times report. Those tables are from reliable sources. Finally, it does not surprise me that you would take the side of the Chinese government against an investigative piece that ran in the NY Times. This appears to be part of a pattern of defending whatever Russia, India and China deem necessary in their scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
Marvin Gandall wrote: The problem, unfortunately, is there has never been anything other than a scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations --anywhere, ever. Therefore, the issue becomes: is such a march historically progressive, despite the human toll? Marx, of course, answered in the affirmative in relation to pre-existing modes of development. You know all this. I recommend that you read Theodor Shanin's Late Marx, which makes a convincing case that Marx rejected the notion of universal models of development. Kautsky, of course, ignored the late Marx and reimposed this schema on Marxism. Lenin returned to the late Marx when he drafted the April Theses, which rejected the notion of a capitalist stage for Russia. Marx wasn't around to witness the failed experiments to leap over the capitalist stage in both China and the USSR in the 20th century. I now think he may well have repudiated these efforts, especially on seeing the outcome, and interpreted the reversion to capitalism in each instance as consistent with his theory. He was not ammoral and would have condemned the massive social cost, but the moral dimension would have been subordinate to his analysis, and I expect also that he would have seen the Stalinist interlude as an effect rather than cause of these historical developments. I see that you omit Cuba in this 2 sentence panorama of the last 100 years. Highly revealing. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
South China Morning Post, Aug. 2 Police shoot villagers in land dispute, report says by: Staff Reporter Dozens of people in Shijiahe village in Zhengzhou, Henan province, were reportedly injured yesterday when police arrested troublemakers who had organised protests over land deals approved by village leaders. Chinesenewsnet.com, an overseas-based Chinese affairs website, carried a message posted by a family member saying about 600 policemen surrounded the village in the early hours yesterday to arrest villagers who were identified as troublemakers. The villagers had complained that village leaders had pocketed the proceeds from the land deals. Armed with tear gas, shotguns, dogs and electric batons, the police confronted unarmed villagers who tried to stop them from taking the troublemakers away, the message said. As a result, more than 30 people suffered gunshot wounds and six were seriously hurt. The message did not say how many villagers or troublemakers had been arrested but said the injured villagers were being treated in a hospital in Zhengzhou. The report said the villagers opposed the land sale, which involved investment of as much as 40 million yuan.
Re: China and socialism . . . yea . . . when it all fall down
The problem, unfortunately, is there has never been anything other than a "scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations" --anywhere, ever. Therefore, the issue becomes: is such a march historically progressive, despite the human toll? Marx, of course, answered in the affirmative in relation to pre-existing modes of development. You know all this. Marx wasn't around to witness the failed experiments to leap over the capitalist stage in both China and the USSR in the 20th century. Comment When it all falls down the ceiling crashes on everyone head without regard to the politics or ideology contained in each head. Without question industrial society and all its boundaries of development set the basis and stage for the communist society Marx spoke of. After many years of considering these questions . . . my own personal opinion is that the communists were more than less doomed by the constrain of the last boundary of history . . . especially so . . . in the absence of public property relations in the advanced industrial countries. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao ZeDung, Uncle Ho and the paramount leader Fidel are not causes but effects and as such are banners or direction of a particular detachmentof communist leaders. Nor could social revolution be exported to the advance industrially developed countries. And we most certainly could not carry out insurrection in the absence of social revolution in America. To the same degree this is what the Soviets faced and also China. Yes, the Great October Revolution was socialist . . . meaning its leaders held a vision of communism but above all it was the acceleration of the industrial revolution with all its consequences for market exchange and the law of value. The goal of communism has never been public property but the abolish of property on the basis of its last historically evolved form . . . bourgeois property. One cannot have this as a practical task in a more than less agricultural society. I have arrived at the conclusion that the key to what happened in the Soviet Union and what is taking place in China resides in our own history. Not in the sense of us overthrowing the bourgeoisie but curve of development. No one beats the machine of history and overthrowing a bureaucratic order is impossible until history steps into the social arena and erode the basis upon which an "order" is established. China is more complex because it was a national democratic revolution led by communists. The National Democratic Revolution is bourgeois by definition. And the communist of China have carved themselves a noble page . . . chapter in history. The last time history placed social revolution on the agenda in the American Union was the Civil War. The Civil Rights Movement was not social revolution but a reform movement to allow the expansion of the industrial system and the mechanization of agriculture. There was no magical "workers uprising in Russian" but an economic and social collapse as the result of a catastrophic war time defeat during the passing from feudal economic and social relations to industrial relations. Today on a world scale we face the industrial bureaucracy in all its property forms and relations. The intersection is going to be complex and profound. The world has been more than less industrialized and we are at the beginning of this enormous leap to a post industrial world that may take a century of two. We have no way to chart this curve . . . yet. We cannot make anyone . . . especially our own working class do something it does not want to do or understand as rational. Nor could we even maintain our orientation during the past 30 years of assaulting the bourgeois order. Marx said that we hold the key and our actuality was the future of all the areas of the world . . . . economically drawn forward in our wake . . . industrial curve of development. I utterly reject as foolishness that we have failed in discharging our responsibility to our working class because some group was Trotskyists . . . or Stalinists or studied the Thought of Ma ZeDung or practiced Buddhism or "didn't really understand Marx." China is going to face and is facing the exact same social revolution we face in America. Their future resides with their proletariat and not her peasants. The people of China are deciding their fate . . . just as the people of America are deciding our fate. People fight for what they believe in and if no one believes in industrial socialism . . . then we need to understand its objective and subjective dimensions. We need to understand the lesson of the Soviet Union and Putin . . . or rather the counterrevolution that overthrew Reconstruction in America. If a ruling class can have the specific form of its economic base shattered and reemerge as a freaking ruling class . . . then we are in for a rough ride. Communist revolutionaries have not and
Re: China and socialism- 50 years of the Western Left
Pieinsky wrote: Questions for Henry from an old Maoist: (1) Aren't you concerned at all about the evidence of increasing class disparities and the consequent rise of open class struggles (workers' strikes, farmers' protests, etc.) in "Red" China? What do these occurrences mean, in your opinion? Class is disparity by definition. I am vigorously against income disparity. The working class should enjoy the same income or even higher income than the bourgeoisie. Those members of the bourgeoisie who work to increase income of workers are performing a useful function. Excess profit is not only counterrevolutionary, it is even bad economics in an overcapacity economy. Strikes are not really class struggle activities, especially legal strikes in the context of a capitalist system. General strikes to shut down the economy are revolutionary, but there have not any general strikes for quite a few decades in the West. In a system such as China's, the way to protect worker and peasant interests is not through strikes but through intra party political struggles, to get the right people into the central committee and the polibureau. The private sector grows in China due to very complex political and geopolitical factors. No one can accuse China and the Communist Party of China for not giving Maoism a fair chance. But facts are that while the ideology is admirable, the results have been wanting. Wealth needs to be created before it can be shared. (2) Why does it have to be either poverty or "ideological purity"? Can't a Third World country's development take place, while at the same time preserving and extending more egalitarian social relations, as I think Mao hoped for China? The reasons are very complex. Purity of any kind, including religious purity, tends to require tradeoffs that reduce life to single dimensional results. What we need is to merge ideological aims with utilitarian implementations. Nothing the Western Left has voiced has impressed me as being useful for the situation in China. Noise of no practical value does not deserve attention. In fact, I cannot think of any achievement of significant by the Western left in the last five decades. Despite all the anti-China noise, China is still the most socialist economy in the world. Ask the Cubans who have visited China, including Castro, who has long since stopped criticizing China. Henry C.K. Liu This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Re: China and socialism
As for whether China would be a good model for the rest of the Third World, let the people of the Third World decide for themselves. We don't need self-righteous academics in the West to pronounce what is an ideologically correct model for the Third World. The sad fact is that the Western left have done little for the Third World beyond destructive talk. Until members of the Western Left can control their own imperialists governments and improve the lot of the poor in their own societies, they had better be a bit more humble about what is correct. Lou's reply: What arrogance. Henry Liu had no problem lecturing Marxmail about Jews supporting Adolph Hitler, but he is neither Jewish nor German. When he stops writing about things that are not exclusively Chinese, I will stop writing about things that are not exclusively Jewish. Comment When it all fall down and the truth comes out. Ones Jewishness is not an issue because in the American Union . . . Jews are not oppressed and exploited as Jews. Who cares what Jews supported Hitler as a political context? Individuals always try and save their hide and protect their families and conditions under diverse conditions. What are you talking about . . . man? That is to say Chinese and the overseas Chinese appear to have a different relationship to China than Jews to America. This means their social and economic relations in history is different from the Jews to America. There is a difference because China is a geographic bound land mass with a long unbroken continuos history . . . like 2000 years. In the sense of Jews I think we talking about very early mercantilism and coinage. trade and what would a thousand years later be expressed as a form of merchant capital. The real issue is the anti-China lobby and its demand for Regime Change or the overthrow of the government and CPC in China and this political conclusion is embedded in ones economic and political approach to China. It would be a tragedy if Henry limited his writings to China and have lengthy . . . very lengthy writing on the banking system in America and Europe is excellent material . . . even if one disagrees. I happen to think his material is brilliant. It would be a tragedy if Lou did not learn where his individuality ends and others individually begins. On the world stage the revolutionaries in different countries are not and do not take the academic left serious in America because it is the hand maiden of the imperial bourgeoisie. We the Bully Boys on the block . . . Lou . . . you are more American than Jew and you need to ask the world people about this.Lingering in the corridors of ones mind will get them in trouble. It is not the economic data on China that is in question but your politics. You have called the leaders of China some bad things based on the interior of your mind and not the history of China. You know my feeling on this matter . . . rotten chauvinism. In terms of this Jewish thing you raise . . . I am African American and I am not cosmopolitan and at this stage of history the worlds people reject cosmopolitanism as ideology for a complex of reasons. What does you being Jewish mean in America for the social struggle? I can tell you in plain terms what Henry being Chinese mean to the social struggle in America and China. Don't thug . . . outsideof your class league and narrow conceptions. Or rather understand the boundary and limits. Now if you were not anti-China and anti-Soviet and anti-Russian and had the answer for everything on earth . . . but have no credentials . . . wait a minute. Is it because Leon Trotsky was a Jew that you have affinity with him? You raised the Jewish Question. You . . . not me. I only raise the question of social revolution and African American Liberation because it is central to American history. There is no economic contradiction between African American and America as a social and political history and economic formation other than an intractable social position.Is this the case with Jews? What is this Jewish thing about? What . . . you talking about . . . man? What do you suggest for China? You're apparently the "Shell Answer Man." Henry's proposition are extremely clear covering the entire economy form sovereign credit to the relative inequality of equality . . . that is working families can receive more money than that of the bourgeoisie based on need . . . to monetary reform and why China should not devalue its money. Did you know Jefferson's attitude on the baking system and if you did why did you write a nonsensical history of the Civil War and Reconstruction and the property relations of the South? Leave China alone . . . or at any rate be careful. What . . . you have the right to say anything because you a Jew? You inserted this into the question of China for reasons known only to you. See . . . I have no tolerance for the bullshit.
Re: China and socialism
Louis Proyect wrote: I recommend that you read Theodor Shanin's Late Marx, which makes a convincing case that Marx rejected the notion of universal models of development. I haven't read Shanin's book. But reinterpreting Marx has been the fashion ever since the socialist revolution he foresaw in the heavily proletarianized industrial West did not occur, but broke out instead in primarily peasant societies outside the advanced capitalist heartlands. The claim that Marx never developed a schema whereby societies necessarily progressed from feudalism to capitalism to socialism was invoked to lend his authority to the revolutions which were carried out in the name of socialism and the working class in Russia, China and other predominantly peasant societies. For Western Marxists like Louis who still see their societies as rotten ripe for socialism -- and predicate their political behaviour on that assumption -- it can be demoralizing to acknowedge that Marx may have been a good analyst of capitalism, but wrong about its staying power. I suspect Shanin's book may belong to this genre. Lenin returned to the late Marx when he drafted the April Theses, which rejected the notion of a capitalist stage for Russia. Contemporary Russia indicates Lenin was wrong to dismiss this possibility. In fact, he was more prescient about the long term movement of Russian history before the April theses. Prior to 1917, he foresaw an extended period of capitalist development in a parliamentary democracy dominated by the workers' and peasants' parties -- encapsulated in his formula of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Kautsky, whom Lenin admired until the former became a renegade supporter of the German war effort and critic of the Bolshevik Revolution, held a similar view. In 1917, understandably excited by the prospects of a socialist revolution in Russia and the West, Lenin called for a government based on soviets of workers and peasants rather than on a multi-class parliament, and effectively embraced Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which called on it to construct socialism. The 70 year experiment with public ownership and a planned economy followed. What would the classical Marxists say today with the power of hindsight? Even Trotsky admitted he would be forced to revise his views if WWII did not result in the long-delayed socialist revolution in the West and the overthrow of Stalinism in the USSR. Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Trotsky ever anticipated that post-capitalist societies would revert back to capitalism, the central political development of our time. I see that you omit Cuba in this...panorama of the last 100 years. Highly revealing. Revealing of what? I still regard the Cuban Revolution as one of the most heroic episodes of our lifetime and respect and admire Fidel as much as I ever did, but to suggest that the socialist characteristics of this small island are more significant to our understanding of historical trends and Marxism than the collapse of the USSR and China and the absence of socialist revolution in the West is ridiculous. Moreover, it doesn't take into account the increasing concessions which the Cubans have reluctantly had to make to markets, petty enterprise, and the dollar. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the next generation of Cuban leaders may take the same measures with respect to the nationalized economy, the monopoly of foreign trade, the constraints on capital flows and labour mobility etc. that have been taken in the past 15 years by their former ideological allies. Such is the pressure of the ever-widening global capitalist economy. Might I suggest that instead of referring me to academic works by others and implying I am a Kautskyite enemy of Cuba, it would be better to identify the precise formulations of mine to which you object, and for what reasons. Marv Gandall
Re: China and socialism
Marvin Gandall wrote: societies. For Western Marxists like Louis who still see their societies as rotten ripe for socialism -- and predicate their political behaviour on that assumption -- it can be demoralizing to acknowedge that Marx may have been a good analyst of capitalism, but wrong about its staying power. I suspect Shanin's book may belong to this genre. The next time that somebody gets the impression that I see the USA as rotten ripe for socialism has permission to give me 50 lashes with a cat o'nine tails. Except for Jim Devine, that is. Contemporary Russia indicates Lenin was wrong to dismiss this possibility. No. Contemporary Russia demonstrates that only socialism can produce rational development. The NY Times Magazine article I cited earlier predicts that Russia will go the same way as other capitalist oil-centric countries, like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. In fact, he was more prescient about the long term movement of Russian history before the April theses. Prior to 1917, he foresaw an extended period of capitalist development in a parliamentary democracy dominated by the workers' and peasants' parties -- encapsulated in his formula of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Kautsky, whom Lenin admired until the former became a renegade supporter of the German war effort and critic of the Bolshevik Revolution, held a similar view. Lenin drafted the April Theses because it became obvious that the progressive bourgeoisie would continue with the senseless slaughter of WWI, refuse to divide up the rural estates and grant oppressed nations their freedom. In other words, socialism was necessary to complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution. say today with the power of hindsight? Even Trotsky admitted he would be forced to revise his views if WWII did not result in the long-delayed socialist revolution in the West and the overthrow of Stalinism in the USSR. Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Trotsky ever anticipated that post-capitalist societies would revert back to capitalism, the central political development of our time. Stalinism proved more intractable than anybody imagined. This is our woesome legacy, to have a hegemonic left that pushed for class alliances with the bourgeoisie. Even though the CP has been eclipsed, this kind of stinking reformism is very much alive unfortunately. markets, petty enterprise, and the dollar. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the next generation of Cuban leaders may take the same measures with respect to the nationalized economy, the monopoly of foreign trade, the constraints on capital flows and labour mobility etc. that have been taken in the past 15 years by their former ideological allies. Such is the pressure of the ever-widening global capitalist economy. Perhaps. But that is not the same thing as championing capitalist property relations like the Mensheviks and their latter-day followers do. Might I suggest that instead of referring me to academic works by others and implying I am a Kautskyite enemy of Cuba, it would be better to identify the precise formulations of mine to which you object, and for what reasons. I myself am opposed to capitalism as a system and capitalist parties. You are free to make your own political choices. You live in Canada, a free country. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
In a message dated 8/2/2004 4:55:52 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have tried to get in touch with Michael and Sabri, but I think that the situation is so urgent that the obvious step has to be taken of terminating the thread which started with discussion of The Monthly Review article on China. It has become too personal and acrimonious. I ask those involved not to contribute any more posts on the subject, and the same applies to other list members, however good their motives or intentions. Urgently, James Daly Comment Why should I not pen/pin the chauvinist I have spent all of my life fighting under impossible conditions of social revolution and then some freaking jerk . . . that has an inclination . . . thinks their opinion about an abstraction is important and then proceed to lecture people about social revolution . . . and has not one single credential in the social struggle? I am ultra hot. I am talking basically about Lou and this garbage about being a Jew. I do not care cause you a Jew. What that supposed to me to me in America? Lou raise these issues and he can be confronted on the basis of the issues he raises. See . . . Lou raised this Jew thing about World War 2 and million Jews . . . and I said what about the 25 million in Russia and then the millions upon millions in China? Where did the Second imperial world war start? Me . . . I am African American and this just so happens to be the central question to revolution in America and the freaking world. Lou is a chauvinists and has always been one and anyone that takes me to task on this has nothing to do but produce his writing on the national question in America. Then we can talk about the working class movement . . . in which I got the fucking credentials. I ask no one for anything . . . but truth. No . . . I will not back down on this political panhandler. Like I give a fuck because some 18 year old jumped in front of a fucking train in China because he could not go to college. This is the stupidest shit I have every read in life . . . and it is written as if has meaning to our working class and intellectuals. Ask the American workers how they feel about not being able to send their kids to college. And this Jew thing you wrote on the A-List . . . are you sure you want to do this Lou? It aint like you Chinese and have China . . . right? Why do you want to go this way in the first place? What next . . . anal sex and homosexuality? This is outrageous. Melvin P. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Re: China and socialism
LP writes: The next time that somebody gets the impression that I see the USA as rotten ripe for socialism has permission to give me 50 lashes with a cat o'nine tails. Except for Jim Devine, that is. You didn't like it the last time? Jim Devine
China and socialism
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. I strongly urge everybody to get a copy of the current MR since it is high time that the left come to terms with what is happening in China. In this post, I am recapitulating some of their main arguments for the benefit of Marxmail subscribers outside the USA who may have difficulty purchasing a copy. Not only do Marty and Paul put the nail into the coffin of Chinese socialism; they pose broader questions about how to understand problems of development. I can think of nothing since Robert Brenner's NLR article on the world financial crisis that makes as big a statement as their article and hope that it opens up some dialog on the left about the issues it poses. This post is a first step in that direction. In part one, Marty and Paul discuss China's Rise to Model Status. Obviously, one would expect people like Stephen Roach of Morgan-Stanley to hail China's unwavering commitment to reform. However, China has also ingratiated itself as a model to so-called progressives like Joseph Stiglitz who was profiled in the Nation Magazine of May 23, 2002 titled Rebel With a Cause. Referring to Stiglitz, Eyal Press tells us that: He also believes the spread of global capitalism has enormous potential to benefit the poor. As an example of a country that has successfully integrated into the global marketplace--but in a manner that defies the conventional wisdom of the Washington Consensus--Stiglitz points to China. China has adopted privatization and lowered trade barriers, he argues, but in a gradual manner that has prevented the social fabric from being torn apart in the process. Full: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020610c=4s=press I guess throwing oneself into the path of an onrushing train does not constitute a rift in the social fabric. When Stiglitz was in Beijing in July, 1998, he called China by far the most successful of the low-income countries' in moving to a market economy. With 85 million people making less than $75 per year, one would dread less successful examples. Moving along, one encounters a fondness for the Chinese development model among the market socialist academic left. In the 1993 Rethinking Marxism, Victor Lippit considers China as an exception to the capitalist triumphalism that was sweeping the world. He hoped that a mixture of state and privately owned enterprises could be a formula for success. Although somewhat noncommittal on the exact character of Chinese society, Walden Bello has been one of the most outspoken defenders of the development model which he describes as a successful revolutionary nationalist struggle that got institutionalized institutionalized into a no-nonsense state, whatever that's supposed to mean. In defending China's policies against people like Lester Brown, who invoke neo-Malthusian arguments against them, Bello writes: China is one of the world's most dynamic economies, growing between 7-10% a year over the past decade. Its ability to push a majority of the population living in abject poverty during the civil-war period in the late forties into decent living conditions in five decades is no mean achievement. That economic dynamism can't be separated from an event that most of us in the South missed out on: a social revolution in the late forties and early fifties that eliminated the worst inequalities in the distribution of land and income, and prepared the country for economic take-off when market reforms were introduced to the agricultural sector in the late 1970s. full: http://www.focusweb.org/popups/articleswindow.php?id=251 In other words, socialism in China was a kind of training wheels that helped the country prepare for the turbo-capitalism of the recent period. One wonders if Zheng Qingming felt a part of this dynamism, especially in light of a verse he composed: Do not toady to those above. Do not flatter the rich. Do not cheat the poor. Make way for a new generation. While I appreciate Marty and Paul's decision to challenge precepts about market socialism, especially in relation to China, I wonder if this trend all that powerful in the academy. As one who tries to keep track of academic fads, I don't recall that many articles in praise of the Chinese CP over the past 15 years or so in obscure journals on the left. By and large, market socialism was a kind of utopian socialism that turned Mondragon and other
Re: China and socialism
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 politicsfor 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 dealwith 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 the
