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

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

Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:

> (a) if those who -like Henry, I assume- are struggling to keep the
> newly fanged Chinese bourgeoisie far from power in Beijing are
> defeated in China, then China will throw itself headlong to the
> inevitable path that leads to imperialism.
>
> If this should happen, then some newborn Chinese Eximbank will
> finance fancy hotels and luxury buildings.  Such is the nature of the
> beast.
Of course, but the jury is still out for China and the struggle goes on
and will go on for generations.

> (BTW:  even though as an Argentinean I have _many_ things to say
> about the USSR on the _political_ level, I agree with Charles that
> this country _could not_ be imperialist, and for the same reasons
> that China cannot now;  I am sometimes puzzled -and amazed- by
> Henry's insistence on some "party line" issues that date back to the
> Sino-Soviet split.)
My point is that the USSR collapsed not because it was socialist, but
because it turned revisionist. This view is not "party line " at all.
The party line is the USSR collapsed because it failed to go the
revisionist route until too late. The biggest sin of the USSR was that
it let a hard to come by revolution go to waste by causing its own
demise. It was trapped into dissolving the Soviet empire that way the
British was forced to dissolve the British Empire.  In both case, the
argument for throwing in the towel was that the empire was more of a
drain than a gain. It was the Cuban argument advanced by Charles, trade
deficits are not worth the political alliance.  If the USSR did not fail
from taking its imperialist path, then the fall of the USSR is proof
that socialism cannot work. Thus denying that the USSR was imperialist
is a reactionary posture.

> (b) the actual alternative to US global neoliberalism is
> industrialization of the Third World taking into account the old
> lessons on Dept. I, Dept. II and the relationship between both.  This
> is, in the end, what China did.  This path, however, might sometimes
> collide with the Chinese national necessities.  For example:
> Bolivia, today, needs its gas and its iron ore to produce its own
> steel.  China needs Bolivian iron ore to produce steel in China.
> This is not a minor issue, when you consider that Bolivia is a
> starving country of 10 million people, and China is a muscle flexing
> new economic power of 1.2 billion.
You are the victim of disinformation. China does not need Bolivia for
iron ore. China gets all the iron ores it will ever need from Australia
and the shipping cost is cheaper than Bolivia and the Australian ports
are more efficient.  China is buying Bolivia iron ore because Bolivia
need money and the US is denying Bolivia of its previous market. China's
diplomatic offensive in Latin America and Africa and Asia is not based
on any quest for commodities.  That is mere US propaganda and I am
plainly surprise that some on this list bought it. Commodities are sold
in a global market that responses to money which China is beginning to
have quite a bit of.  The Saudis are responding to China not because
they have suddenly turned communist.  Its because they need to sell its
oil and want to prevent US dictation. If you buy the US version of
facts, they will be trapped into US propaganda conclusions.
Today, China has entered the age of net exporter of autos.  Within 10
years, Chinese made cars will sell for 50% less than Japanese cars. This
will benefit Third World consumers.


Henry C.K. Liu