Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: China's "Communist" Status
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Boone wrote:
> In order to be considered a true "Communist" nation, there is a large
> revolutionary process that goes on. Is China in that process? How far have
> they come?
Not very far. China is a Third World periphery, hooked up to the global
economy via, well, VIA (one of Taiwan's innumerable chip firms), plus Hong
Kong's textile and assembly plants. Communism, by definition, would be a
society in which we wouldn't have peripheries or obnoxious exploitation of
workers by capital; it has to be a worldwide thing, because capital is
global to its core. We're probably at least a couple centuries away from
that beatific state of affairs. Basically, China is still in the initial
throes of full-fledged industrialization, so there's a sense in which
industrial class struggle is just beginning to get rolling in China as a
whole (as opposed to islands of modernization such as Shanghai, Beijing or
the Guangdong region, which have a long and colorful history of labor
activism, Left politics, etc.).
-- Dennis
- Thread context:
- Re: On European Union, (continued)
- China's "Communist" Status,
Boone Tue 05 Oct 1999, 03:06 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Carrol Cox Tue 05 Oct 1999, 03:37 GMT
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Dennis R Redmond Tue 05 Oct 1999, 11:06 GMT
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Boone Wed 06 Oct 1999, 01:26 GMT
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Brian Basgen Wed 06 Oct 1999, 03:16 GMT
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Carrol Cox Wed 06 Oct 1999, 04:12 GMT
- Re: China's "Communist" Status,
Jose G. Perez Wed 06 Oct 1999, 05:19 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]