[Marxism] The Chinese economy

["Craven, Jim" <JCraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From the article in the Guardian:

China is both capitalist and communist, ravenously inquisitive and
strictly censored, and the world is beginning to wonder if this strange
equilibrium can be sustained. Can it be that China has found a new third
way, neither the Soviet-style, totalitarian planned economy, nor
western-style democracy and a free market? Can the world's most populous
country really go on indefinitely combining censorship, a rigidly
controlled media, and an authoritarian, secretive, one-party state with 
a dynamic, entrepreneurial culture and technological progress, and not
suffer some economic or political crisis?

Response Jim C:

This about says it all in terms of the worth of this article. First of
all, no society has ever achieved communism--still a far-off goal for
many. This article uses the same old tired "Cold War" lexicon, grammar,
syntax and bankrupt categories.

Secondly, although it is true that capitalist categories, relations,
concepts, constructs, values and practices survive under socialism for
long periods of time, and although it is true that they act as weeds in
the garden of socialism, eroding socialist consciousness as well as
emerging socialist institutions, values, relations, etc, and although it
is true that the primary objective of socialism is to uproot and destroy
capitalist relations etc, the process is never linear or
smooth--expecially when surrounded by imperialist powers bent on the
destruction of socialism anywhere it exists or dares to emerge. The
existence or even expansion of capitalist relations under socialism does
not automatically mean that socialism has been abandoned without any
reference to the concrete contexts and realities within which it is
occurring. In the final analysis, it is a matter of the nature of the
state--as an executive committee for the bourgeoisie (which can assume
many forms under different kinds of systems and societies) versus the
state as an instrument of dictatorship of--not for not or in behalf of,
but rather of--the proletariat and all oppressed strata.

For those who would be quick to judge or conclude that capitalism has
been or is being fully restored in China--as opposed to tacitcal
compromises with some domestic and foreign capital to build productive
forces rapidly, improve standards of living of the broad masses without
whom socialism cannot be built and defended and in order to integrate
into the global economy run on capitalist principles--I would argue that
this case has simply not been made. 

When I was in China, and yes evidence of KFC, NIKE and McDonalds
(nutritional and cultural imperialism) made my own blood boil, I had to
wonder how all these acievements I saw were made despite imperialist
encirclement, despite repeated threats of nuclear annihilation, despite
isolation from the global community of nations, despite denials by
revisionist historians of the ravages China suffered under the Japanese
occupation (imagine your main threat, the U.S. shielded class-A Japanese
War criminals from Unit 731 from prosecution and some went on to become
leaders in Japan), despite over 70% of the population living in rural
areas in need of development and despite a long history of internal
divisions being exploited and exacerbated by foreign imperialist powers.

But I saw a spirit among many Chinese not only of patriotism (and not
the chauvinistic type) but of a real desire to build a new China with
recognition that it was socialism and not capitalism that produced the
greatest gains when one considers what socialism in China has been up
against and the overall historical and present-day contexts within which
socialism has been built and had to be defended.

Imagine if you are in the leadership in China, especially after the rise
of the neocons in the U.S. State, with myriad issues and conditions in
need of being addressed and with a predatory and belicose imperial power
becoming increasingly reckless globally, and you are aware of the
following:

>From the book "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward: 

"When all the intelligence was sorted, weighed and analyzed, Tenet and
Pavitt agreed that there were three major threats to American national
security. One was Osama bin Laden and his al Quaeda terrorist network,
which operated out of a sanctuary in Afghanistan. Bin Laden terrorism as
a 'tremendous threat' which had to be considered 'immediate', they said.
There was no doubt that bin Laden was going to strike at United States
interests in some form. It was not clear when, where, by what means.
President Clinton had authorized the CIA in five separate intelligence
orders to try to disrupt and destroy al Quaeda.

A second major threat was the increasing proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, WMD--chemical, biological and nuclear. This was of
immense concern, they said. Third was the rise of China, especially its
military, but that problem was 5 to 15 or more years away." (p. 12)

And from "The Price of Loyalty" by Paul O'Neil:

>From "Talking Points, FY01 and FY02-07Budget Issues" (pp. 76-77)

1. "The collapse of the Soviet Union has produced centrifugal forces in
the world that have created new regional powers. Several of these are
intensely hostile to the United States and arre arming to deter us from
bringing our conventional or nuclear power to bear in regional crises...

4. China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Noth Korea and others are investing in
these capabilities [C4ISR or Command, Control, Communication, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] that exploit provactive
lapses in U.S. capabilities. Liberalized international trade will
propagate these capabilities to others."

and from p. 79 of O'Neil:

"The draft report [Defense Policy Guidance, 1992, classified Pentagon
report] recommended the United States be forceful in deterring the
growth of 'competitors' which included China and Russia along with
allies like Germany and Japan."...

and from p. 81 of O'Neil:

"Augmented by universally available weapons of mass destruction, such
asymmetic approaches [anything other than conventional force-on-force
engagements of heavy divisions], Rumsfeld wrote, would be enough to deny
the United States access to many regions of the world and 'limit our
ability to apply military power.'

Rumsfeld listed Iraq, along with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, as
moving down this path...

and from pp. 179-180 of O'Neill:

"Once they were airborne, O'Neill dug through his briefcase for some
folded sheets from the trip to China. He'd run through a daunting
schedule of business conferences and trips to schools, met with Jiang
Zemin in the Great Hall of the People, then with China's finance
minister, who said that Chinese currency would be allowed to float, a
bit, but not too much. It was still a command economy after all. To
unleash the forces of market capitalism would tear China apart. He and
Jiang both said, Let's be patient, and let's work together. O'Neill  was
happy to affirm that cooperative spirit. It had been a tough year in
Sino-American relations, starting when the Bush Administration deemed
China no longer a 'strategic partner' but a 'strategic competitor'. The
neocons in the White house and Pentagon were, from the first, listing
China as a country with weapons of mass destruction that was poised to
challenge U.S. interests."

and from pp. 188 of O'Neil:

"O'Neill thought of Rumsfeld's January memo, which had listed Iran,
Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia, and others as trying to exploit lapses
in U.S. capabilities--and then, in its conclusion cited the need for
dome action to dissuade nations from challenging American interests."


What do you do? Get ideologically pure and isolate China from major
global institutions and other nations run on capitalist principles and
ways--nations and institutions that do not interface with socialist
categories and constructs? What do you do when your population is being
bombarded with increasingly subtle, sophisticated and alluring
propaganda and advertising from Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere
promoting lifestyles and material commodities--and associated value
systems--that cause many among the masses to desire what is being
advertized? Do you just write off those people who are asking for
improvements in the quality of life and some material commodities
heretofore unavailable in China? Then you have the issue of oil with
China's oil demand increasing at about 10% per year with oil over $50 a
barrel and all the dislocations that causes. You also have the problem
of many of the youth becoming increasingly distant from the history and
real sacrifices made by their ancestors to build a free, independent and
socialist China--becoming seduced by western lifestyles and values. You
have the problem of needed rapid industrialization on the one hand
versus potential sustained and irreperable damage to the environment.
And it goes on and on.

Jim C.

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