Re: [Pen-l] China's downturn

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marv Gandall  wrote:
> Although the revolution didn't realize it's socialist ideals, it did
> accomplish the "bourgeois-democratic tasks" of land reform,
> industrialization, national unity and independence, and the improvement of
> the living conditions and cultural standards of the population which the
> Chinese bourgeoisie, represented by the Kuomintang, presumably would
> not and could not itself have carried out.

I don't know about those "socialist ideals." I see the Chinese CP as
being a nationalist force with a major basis in the peasantry from the
start. It was clearly statist (fitting with Alexander Gershenkron's
theory, developed partly from stealing ideas from Marxists, that the
later a country develops in the world capitalist economy, the more
statist its regime must be). But its main concern was not
subordination of that state to the people (making it socialist) but to
promote "land reform, industrialization, national unity and
independence, and the improvement of the living conditions and
cultural standards of the population," especially those of its
political base (the peasantry). Of course, there were zigs and zags,
as when Mao's efforts _lowered_ cultural standards via the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

> I say "presumably" because it's at least arguable that the Kuomintang did
> implement such reform and growth in Taiwan, as did other bourgeois parties
> in Japan, South Korea, and the other so-called Asian Tigers.  Of course,
> they all developed under the umbrella of US imperialism.

They also developed their economies in response to the "Red Threat."
The fact that the US elite was tolerant of non-market ways to fight
the Reds back during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s helped too. In the
case of Taiwan, Chiang and the KMT were able to institute land reform
because, unlike on the mainland, they didn't have an alliance with
Taiwanese landlords. (Chaing also had to do _something_ to save his
and the KMT's bacon.) Elsewhere among these "Tigers," General
MacArthur encouraged land reform in Japan and S. Korea. In fact, a
relatively populist version of land reform used to one respectable
version of bourgeois development theory (before the current neoliberal
era). Also, the Vietnam war and the like helped provide a world market
that allowed countries like Taiwan and S. Korea to be pretty
successful at starting down the export-led growth path.

> But the CCP was
> also transformed into a bourgeois party in the process of accomodating to
> private markets at home and fostering China's integration into the world
> capitalist economy.

Right: it became less statist. So there has been a major degree of
(but not total) convergence between Taiwan and the Mainland.

> So Asian growth, notwithstanding it's brutal exploitation and inequality,
> does not seem to accord with the thinking of Lenin, Trotsky, and other
> classical Marxists who rejected the idea that the colonial and semi-colonial
> nations would go through the same stage of bourgeois-led post-feudal
> development as occured in the West - who believed that Western
> imperialism condemned these nations to the development only of
> underdevelopment.

I think it's best to think of Lenin, Trotsky, _et al_ as presenting
only abstract theories here. There was and is still a major tendency
in world capitalism to condemn poorer nations to only underdevelopment
(cf. Africa). But there are also counter-tendencies, such as the need
for the "west" to win the Cold War, etc. Even so, the economic health
of countries like Taiwan is still dependent on the world market more
than that of the US or Mainland China. They have to worry about
competition from areas with low wages, etc.

> ...  I expect Jim would say China's development is not
> surprising from the POV of the state capitalist/bureaucratic collectivist
> school of Marxism [i.e., those that see USSR-type societies as "state
>capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist"], but I need to be reminded of the
> counter-arguments of
> those who continue to defend more conventional Marxist positions on this
> issue.

Should we be concerned about which opinions are "conventional"? aren't
logical coherence, empirical accuracy, and dialectical completeness
more important?
-- 
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l