[Marxism] Re: Michael Keany on MR China article (from a-list)

[Suresh <borhyaenid@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Socialist revolution had in fact strengthened the
ability of China's leaders to dictate terms, whilst
neo-colonialism and imperialist tutelage had rendered
other governments relatively supine before the demands
of investors. Saying this does not amount to an
unequivocal endorsement of China's development
strategy -- only a recognition of the superiority of
China's position over that of, say, the Philippines."



Statements like this make me nervous. We end up with
non-falsifiable arguments. Really, if China since
circa 1978 had seen a precipitous economic decline -
instead of 10% growth rates, maybe flirting with
negative GDP change - then we would be pointing to the
restoration of capitalism as the culprit. But if the
privatization of collective farms and communes and
opening up to foreign investment in the special
economic zones has led to extraordinary rates of
industrialization - however typically uneven - then we
suggest that Mao deserves credit and that socialism
laid the necessary foundation for China's successful
abandonment of that mode of production. On the other
hand, all the numerous ugly features of development,
like the displacement of millions of peasants, workers
living in crowded rat-infested tenements or factory
barracks, and despoilation of the environment, are all
the unique products of capitalist penetration. This
may indeed be the case, but we end up sounding
distinctly unconvincing to anyone not already a
believer. For example, one banal reason for China's
development since the late 70's is that the country
found itself already surrounded by the so-called Asian
Tigers, Japan plus the newly industrializing countries
like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. Geographical
proximity matters in capitalism, even in the age of
globalization, which has a lot to do with the
differences in the post-capitalist experience in
Poland and the Baltic states, say, versus Russia.

Similarly, if Nehru had led a socialist revolution in
India, then we'd be taking credit for the explosion of
the IT sector since the post-91 economic policy. Since
he didn't, and since land reform was never thoroughly
carried out, we can point to the pitifully low rates
of FDI in the country as compared to China as
objective evidence of the continuing beneficial
effects of proletarian revolutions. And around and
around we go.

Not to sound like a Menshevik, but part of me thinks
that instead of simply wringing our hands over changes
in East and South Asia, we should consider these
developments as stark opportunities, as tens of
millions are brutally thrust into working-class life.
This combined with the increasingly naked imperialism
of the U.S. potentially reawakening old rivalries
among the major powers and schemes to divvy up the
world, gives us an increasingly combustible
international situation which capitalism has no
answers to. Whatever the successes of leap-frogging
into socialism in a previous era, the fact is that a
rather stage-ist scheme may emerge de facto for
historians of the future utopia as they look back,
simply due to the tragic failures of the 20th century.


                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism