Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems of int'l. strategy fortoday's China

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles;

For both superpowers during the Cold War, foreign aid accompanied
interstate economic relations and trade as part of the ideological
competition. The US was also less exploitative during the Cold War with
its allies. But the basic economic relationship with their satellite
economies was imperialistic for both superpowers. With the USSR, as
revisionist policies took hold, it bacame more economically capitalistic
at home and imperialistic within the Soviet sphere of influence.  Trade
relations with all the Soviet satellites were increasing one of
colonialist in character with Russia keeping all the industrial
development and the other republics supplying cheap labor and raw
material. What is more significant was that Soviet planners failed to
see that high worker income was necessary for every economy. They took
the position that exploitation of workers in the name of socialist
construction was acceptable and exploitation of other economies within
the Soviet block was necessary towin the Cold War.  Because the
revolution started first in Russia, the Russian felt superior in
economics in which they had not earned or deserved respect.  Russian
advisors were as useless as IMF economists to the poor economies. Having
failed to make sociailst economies dynamic machines of wealth creation,
the Soviets sought to sustain their superpower status by the
exploitation of allies.  The net trade deficit incurred by the USSR with
Cuba, for example, was calculated on world prices for sugar which was
not a very revolutionary basis.  All Cuba had to do to eliminate the
trade deficit with the USSR was to raise the price of sugar, but was not
allowed to do so by both the US and the USSR. The USSR used the US
dominated world price for sugar as an excuse to impose a trade deficit
on Cuba.

Poverty is not a socialist program.  The purpose of socialism is to
create and equally distribute wealth.  The Soviet failed on both
accounts.  We would have to see if China can escape the same mistakes.
There are signs that a heroic effort is under way, both domestically and
internationally to create wealth with equality in China. at this stage
of the game wealth creation has to take priority becasue poverty with
equality is still poverty.  It is simple and easy to be equally poor.
The trick is to share qealth, but the challenge is moot unless there is
wealth to share. And at this stage of history, wealth cannot be created
by merely being ideological pure.  At least I don't know how and I don't
know any one that knows how. Thus equality is meaningless until and
until there is ealth to share equally. If you study carefully the new
terms of trade China is offering to the Third World, you will see that
there are fundamental differences by neo-liberal globalization.  China
is offering real win-win alternatives, not meaningless gifts that just
perpetuates poverty. This is why China is receiving enthusiastic
responses from Castro, Chavez and Morales and others, including African
strongmen that Bond blames China for, notwithstanding that China did not
install them.  For one thing, the emphasis is not on financial
maunipulation but on real physical development and secondly China is not
trading on the basis of its economy being more "advance" or "superior".
Chinesse trade does not go to build luxuary hotels for Chinese tourists
or fancy office buildings to house Chinese firms. Chinese ecexutives are
not paid exhorbitant salaries. And finally, China is striking up
economic relations with the Third World not to reinforce US neo-liberal
globalism but to provide an alternative to it.  This is why the
neo-liberals, with the help of the self-style "progressive" NGO and
Civil Society types are warning that China is no different from the US
while never having been very effective in stopping US exploitation. The
message is :don't take the alternative China is offering, stay with the
old disease, at least you are already accustomed to the damage and this
will weaken the "dictators". It nothing but a wet dream. China may not
succeed, but if it doe not, the world will be in worse shape.  The likes
of Bond is helping put obstacle in China's uphill effort to revive the
socialist revolution by granstanding on "human rights" and "democracy".
If China should fail, the Western left would have to share
responsibility with the CIA.


Henry C.K. Liu



Charles Brown wrote:

> Henry, my question about characterizing the SU as imperialist would be that
> I don't see where the SU was economically exploiting any colonies.  Wasn't
> there net values exported to Cuba, for example, not imported ?  The SU had
> to occupy Eastern Europe because fascism had just been there and through
> there on its path to commit the holocaust against the SU. The Soviet
> government had a responsibility to its people who had suffered so
> horrendously to guarantee no new invasion. The SU didn't set up capitalist
> relations of production in colonies. This is a key aspect of the Leninist
> definition of imperialism.
>
> So , these are my hesitations in calling the SU imperialist.
>
> I do think the militarization of the SU ,including militarization of the
> civilian society in the form of dictatorial system, was critical in the its
> fall. This is related to socialist revolution in an economically less
> developed nation, that is it has to put such a high portion of its
> production into the military, for true self-defense. However, that was
> forced on the SU by imperialism. It is the great dilemma we must solve in
> the next efforts to win socialism. How do we get around capitalism's
> abiliity to force socialism to militarize at "gunpoint" ?
>
> Onward !
>
> Charles