Is China Capitalist?

by Ray Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:28

NEWSWIRE
not debating shop

If a debate comes naturally from some news item, fine, but there's little enough original news reporting on here at the moment and the last thing the site needs is debates without articles.

(The answer, BTW, is 'dictatorship'. The difference between a 'state capitalist' dictatorship and a 'deformed workers state' dictatorship is unimportant.)

by master debater Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:33

well ray there is a big difference between a deformed workers state dictatorship and a state capitalist dictatorship. In a deformed workers state the economy is planned and is under state control, under state capitalism it's under control of a capitalist leadership that are in the state apparatus.

If working people are to come to power they have to know whether to have a political revolution (ie seize the economic control from the bureaucrats in a deformed workers state) or to have an economic revolution (ie take economic ownership of economy from the ruling bourgeois class in a state capitalist state)

by iosaf says talk talk talk about China. Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:49

related links for China newsworthy that is this week...
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1491569
now let´s consider one of the weaknessess of ML global strategy.
If our comrades (I´m an anarchist) get their way and establish centralised workers states using present technology and means of production efficiently and with real intent on increasing the material prosperity of the greatest number of people then what shall they do about Chinese life patent laws?
just wondering?
I´d love to know what the reds have to say.
and where we could debate these things.
the reds hang out at.
http://www.swm.ie
http://www.socialistparty.net
ampongst other places.
we hang out at
http://www.infoshop.org
http://www.nodo50.org
amongst other places
and the greens they´ve lots of really expert thoughts on genetics and maybe could advise us all on China they hang out at
http://www.greenparty.ie/
and on the beaches of Galizia
http://www.ecologistasaragon.org/prestige/

and this is another nunca mas (never again) about Hiroshima what happened there?
http://pcserver2.sel.cs.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/pm/english/bbs/35.html

by Ray Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:51

"In a deformed workers state the economy is planned and is under state control, under state capitalism it's under control of a capitalist leadership that are in the state apparatus"

So you're saying that it makes a difference whether the dictatorship that uses the state apparatus to control the economy is 'capitalist' or not. In either case, they have effective control over the economy, say they rule in the interests of the people/workers, and enjoy a much higher living standard than the people/workers*. How can you tell which ones are the capitalists? And what difference does it make to the people they rule?

* a tradition going back to Lenin and Trotsky at least

by iosaf Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:52

the young Fine Gael (for foreign readers that´s a youth wing of Europe´s largest rightwing grouping which includes partys in Italy, Spain Germany and the UK, Austria and Denmark and well over the shop who well have a bad reputation for being crypto-fascist.
Young Fine Gael is not you must note a witty slightly funny name for young fine gaelic playing speaking activists, because some people have been wondering.
the Irish youth section of the European right hang out at
http://www.yfg.ie

by iosaf paraphrases Orwell and posits Alice - anarchists are some discoridian Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:56 but we all are very very clever aren´t we? the Cat´s pyjameees. and others materialists

the animals looked at the pigs then the men and the pigs and then the men and the men and the pigs and you know....they couldn´t tell them apart.
Where do you suggest we hold our debates Ray?
in the woods above Bishop square?
for Tweedledum and Tweedledee were a diversion from the Mad Hatter´s teaparty (a particularly chinese product) a manouvre that is often used to this day in limited move chess games.
Karpov wrote a fine essay on it.
fan of the nonsense was he.

by Bolshevic Tue Dec 17, 2002 17:28

If working people are to come to power they have to know whether to have a political revolution (ie seize the economic control from the bureaucrats in a deformed workers state) or to have an economic revolution (ie take economic ownership of economy from the ruling bourgeois class in a state capitalist state)

by Andrew Tue Dec 17, 2002 17:31

Ahh yes the revolution stumbles as the workers wonder whether they should seize the workplaces from the bosses or whether they should instead seize the workplaces from the bosses.

Next vital question - 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'

by Ray Tue Dec 17, 2002 17:39

"So, what are we seizing then?"
"Our workplaces, of course"
"But who from?"
"The people who order us around and profit from our labour, of course"
"But are they bureaucrats in a deformed workers state or bourgeoisie in a state capitalist state?"
"Errr... okay, I give in"
"Go home and study your Marx, comrade! You're obviously not ready for revolution!"

by kev - sp Tue Dec 17, 2002 22:55

actually, there is currently a debate on the nature of the chinese state going on at http://www.socialistyouth.cjb.net in the "left exchange" section.

by Stephen Boyd Wed Dec 18, 2002 13:13

A number of contributors have raised that it is unimportant whether China is capitalist, “state capitalist” or a deformed workers state. However the political, social and economic nature of a state is fundamental. It in fact does matter who is exploiting or oppressing workers. It fundamentally affects the way in which the masses struggle to overthrow their oppressors, and it guides and dictates programme, tactics and strategy.
The ability to correctly define the nature of a state affects how you interpret events and what position and tactics you employ and argue for at various times. The capitalist counter-revolution in the USSR was such an occasion. The SWP heralded the capitalist counter-revolution in the USSR as a victory for the working class, when the opposite was the case -the restoration of capitalism in the USSR was an historic defeat for the international working class.
This position came from their incorrect analysis that the USSR was already a capitalist state and therefore all that was happening was that a form of bonapartist capitalist dictatorship was being replaced by a more open form of bourgeois democracy. During these events the SWP stood on the side of the counter-revolution. Subsequently, the small numbers of supporters they had in the former Soviet Union did not take up a position of opposing the selling of state industries to the newly emerging capitalist class or to the vultures from the capitalist multinationals, because according to their analysis they were already owned by capitalism! The restoration of capitalism in the USSR had been a complete disaster ushering in a period of absolute misery for the Russian working class and the working class of the other former soviet states. Needless to say the SWP no longer as any forces in the former USSR.
During the Second World War the Soviet people fought and died in their millions to drive the Nazis from the USSR. They made such a sacrifice not just because of the brutality of their Nazi occupiers but also to defend the gains of the October Revolution, to defend the planned economy. To the Soviet working class the nature of their state was of crucial importance, of such importance that they were prepared to sacrifice their lives.
The ability to correctly define the nature of a state is also of crucial importance from the point of view of what class or classes have the potential to overthrow that state through revolutionary struggle. In an advanced capitalist country the only class capable of playing a progressive role in the struggle for socialism is the working class. At certain key moments of mass struggle, a pre-revolutionary period, sections of the middle class will side with the working class in this struggle, however the working class are the key to revolutionary change.
In a semi-feudal or feudal state the peasantry, because of their size have a greater specific weight in society and will therefore also play a fundamental role alongside the proletariat, i.e. - Russia 1917. The contributor who suggested we should read Lenin obviously has read very little of Lenin’s writings or has completely failed to understand even the basics of his ideas as it was his ability to clearly define the nature of the Russian state that play a fundamental role in the formation of the analysis of the Bolsheviks and their tactics and programme that eventually led to the October Revolution.
During the degeneration of the French Revolution, those who opposed the bonapartist thermidor, i.e., the descent of the revolution into dictatorship, were not struggling for a social revolution. They were not fighting to overthrow capitalism, which at that time was playing a revolutionary and progressive historic role in replacing feudalism. They were fighting for a political revolution, for the replacement of those who had usurped power, they were fighting in essence for political changes that would herald the beginnings of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, which again at that point in history was an important and progressive leap forward for humanity.
This was also the case in the former USSR. The left opposition, or as they are better known the Trotskyists were not struggling to overthrow the planned economy, but the Stalinist bureaucracy who had seized power. What was needed in the USSR was not a social revolution but a political revolution. The overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy and its replacement with workers’ democracy would have freed the planned economy from the stranglehold of the bureaucrats. This analysis and hence guide to action, tactics, strategy and programme of Trotsky was a million miles removed from the flawed analysis of the SWP. The SWP believed it was necessary to have a social revolution because the USSR was a capitalist state, that’s why they ended up supporting the capitalist counter-revolution. In Trotsky’s books “In Defence of Marxism” and the “Revolution Betrayed”, he completely destroys the arguments of the “state capitalists”.
China is a hybrid state. It is a deformed workers state which has elements of capitalist development within it. Whole sections of the Chinese economy are now run on an openly capitalist basis. However, for a state with a huge land mass and a population of 1.3 billion the areas of the country which are openly capitalist are small in comparison to the rest of the country which is still run as a planned economy, albeit under the stranglehold of a corrupt and repressive bureaucracy. It seems that China is moving in the direction of the restoration of capitalism, but this process is far from unfinished and may be halted or slowed down by events, i.e. the developing world recession or the intervention of the Chinese workers and peasants.
Failure to correctly analysis the nature of a state will lead those who scoff at such issues to make fundamental political mistakes. If the SWP had’ve been a significant political force in the USSR at the time of the counter-revolution their analysis would have led the working class to an historic defeat. If the CWI had have had significant forces then it is possible they could have led the Soviet working class to an historic revolutionary victory which would have led to the development of a genuine workers’ democracy in the USSR. This would have heralded the beginning of the world socialist revolution .
So Ray and Andrew - it does actually matter!

by Ray Wed Dec 18, 2002 13:22

The scary thing is that I'm sure that last post was serious. Someone obviously still believes in 'scientific socialism'...

by Andrew Wed Dec 18, 2002 13:24

So what your saying is that what is important is who runs the state and not whether the workers are directly in charge of their workplaces and society as a whole. Well fair enough, we obviously disagree, I don't find the idea of the glorious CWI dictatorship anymore attractive then any other 'glorious dictatorship'.

by OK - SP Wed Dec 18, 2002 16:35

If you read Stephen's contribution you will see that he at no point supports the un-democratic nature of the USSR and the soviet states. What he is saying is that it is important to have an analysis of what the state is - is it capitalist? is it a deformed workers' state? etc.

The USSR was a degenerated workers' state. (ie there was a planned economy, but it was undemocraticly planned). At the time of the fall of stalinism it was important that socialists would defend the planned economy AND make calls for genuine workers control of that planned economy.

The SWP beleived that the USSR was state capitalist, therefore they did not oppose the restoration of capitalism.

Andrew, If you are serious about debate you will see that the CWI are not arguing against workers control of the economy. What is at stake in this debate is what is the nature of China. In the USSR the CWI understood that the economy was a planned one, therefore we made calls for the defence of a planned economy, and we argued that there should be a political revolution with workers taking control of this planned economy.

by Ray Wed Dec 18, 2002 16:50

Sorry, OK, but this kind of nonsense is exactly why so many people think the far left is insane.

There is no reason why socialists or anarchists should support a planned economy, irrespective of who is doing the planning. What we are supposed to be fighting for is _workers_ control. The dictatorship of a party of bureaucrats is not halfway to workers control, its just another dictatorship.

Actual workers control has nothing to do with that kind of central planning, because real workers control comes from below. Decisions are made by ordinary workers, not by a central elite - no matter who that elite is, and no matter whether they're called 'capitalists' or 'bureaucrats'.

The reason so many people think you support the undemocratic nature of the USSR and China is because you keep implying is that the problem with both countries is not that they have/had a small group of people running the economy from the centre, but that they had the 'wrong' small group of people in there.

There is no 'right' group of people to run a command economy, and you think there is then you've got a pretty strange idea of workers democracy and workers control.

by Andrew Wed Dec 18, 2002 16:53

With respect OK this gibberish about 'planned economy' used to sound good to some when the USSR existed and when the CWI denied 'capitalism' could be re-introduced except through a 'bloody counter revolution'. After '89 it has come to look more and more like what it is, a defence of dictatorship and the slave labour camps that made this 'planned'* economy possible coupled to a quibble over which party gets to run show. Look at the contributions from a CWI member at http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=revoltnew&Number=11432&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=
and you'll see this coming out clearer and clearer.

In retrospect it has become clear the so called 'planned economy' of the USSR was quite similar to the planned economies of Nazi Germany and the various military dictatorships of Southern America. That is it was run by a political class that realised that to build the 'national economy' it had to offer a carrot as well as a stick to the workers. The stick of course was the slave labour camps that were the real motor of the economy in the 20's and 30's. The carrot was the promise of the 'full rice bowel' for those who obeyed orders. You cannot divorce one of these elements from the other, the 'full rice bowel' was made possible by the slave labour (and often of course the bowel was empty leading to famines in which millions starved).

by Irony is dead Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:30

'The SWP beleived that the USSR was state capitalist, therefore they did not oppose the restoration of capitalism.'

You didn't really think that one through did you?

by Irony is dead Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:50

So what happened in the former USSR was a counter revolution? So much clarity after 10 years. At the time your organisation did not talk of counter revolution. There was no attempt to organise people anywhere to prevent a 'counter revolution'. In fact you were calling for a political restoration.

Bit of a difference there. Imagine a regime trying to turn a capitalist economy into a feaudal one. Turning the clock back like that would involve a horrendous bloodshed (Pol Pot did it). That DOES NOT equate to what happened in Russia in 1989. Firstly there was hardly a bloodbath and secondly the workers didn't give a flyin' feck about defending 'their state'. There was a political revolution in terms of leaders being changed. However the day to day running of the system is in the hands of the people who ran it bar a few exceptions prior to 1989.

By the way the idea that if the CWI had a significant presence there would have meant the start of the world revolution is just plain sad.

That capitalist restoration is possible in China is a complete joke. That a power the size of China, with its strong market links to the West, its EPZ's, its membership of UN security council et etc is any way a workers state - is just complete nonsense. So the students in Tiannemann Square were probably a counter revolutionary force in your eyes? Again complete hogwash.

by OK - SP Wed Dec 18, 2002 18:32

Ray staed "There is no reason why socialists or anarchists should support a planned economy". Socialist do support the planned economy because what we are fighting for is a democraticly planned economy planned in the interests of ordinary people and the environment.

A planned economy brought great gains to the USSR. There was a massive increase in production, that would not have been capable under a capitalist Russia. The USSR was a planned economy that was isolated internationally and was not under the control of workers. What we are fighting for is a planned economy that is not isolated internationally and is under control of workers.

When we say workers' control we do not, and never did, mean the control of unaccountable bureaucrats.

"Irony is dead" makes the point that the CWI somehow thought that the students in Tiananmen Sq were counter-revolutionary! That's a complete lie. We supported the students in their demands for democratic control of the economy. The CWI had a small presence in Tiananmen Sq at the time and we got support for our ideas on the defence of the planned economy and for genuine workers democracy. Read Steve Jolly's eyewitness account of Tiananmen Sq.

by OBSERVER Wed Dec 18, 2002 19:02

"There was a massive increase in production, that would not have been capable under a capitalist Russia."

So the rate of exploitation was higher than under capitalism. Brilliant, isn't it? Small wonder that they needed tanks, the army and mass terror to strangle workers' revolt. One would have thought that the whole point for a marxist was to abolish labour, not to increase it!

by Brian Cahill Wed Dec 18, 2002 19:15

Perhaps Observer should think that one through.

Marxists are in favour of increased production - in fact only vastly increased production would allow a socialist society to provide for all the needs of humanity.

We are not against "labour" or against production. We are against the exploitation of labour and we want to abolish its role as a commodity.

by hunter - pfln Wed Dec 18, 2002 23:07

So Ray does not think that we should support a planned economy. First he would do well to define exactly what he means by planning? (Genuine) socialists, and i assume, some anarchists, ultimate goal is a democratically planned economy with the working class firmly in control of their own destinies. Ray's line seems to be that what is important is 'planning from below' and he rejects 'centralism'. I on the other hand think a healthy balance will be need to be struck. Centralised bureaucratic planning obvioulsy has been proven to be unworkable, both in an economic sense (altho massive gains were made under central planning) and in a democratic sense. However, if all production levels were to be decided in single workplaces, there would undoubtedly be chaos, as for example, say you worked in a factory, and you decideced that 2million of what ever you made were needed in this quarter and 2million were produced but only 1.5 million were actually needed, this is a waste of half a million. but with proper planning, with elected committees (subject to recall!), etc a properly planned economy could be worked out. Also these committess should hold influence over the actual poltical running of the revolutionary state (i can see the anarcists wretching at the mention of the 's' word). It is my belief that this is the only basis on which we will see the full and final eradication of capitalism and freedom for all the people of the globe.

by MARXIST OBSERVER Thu Dec 19, 2002 01:44

"Marxists are in favour of increased production -in fact only vastly increased production would allow a socialist society to provide for all the needs of humanity."

Maybe it's time to brush up your Marx.
But then again Lenin Himself wrote that Taylorism should have been adopted in the USSR as an advanced and scientific organisation of labour. Let's screw up the workers in the name of socialism. Great idea!

"We are not against "labour" or against production. We are against the exploitation of labour and we want to abolish its role as a commodity."

So you are all in favour of the USSR workhouses and slave labour. That was indeed a way to abolish the role of labour as a commodity. Congratulations! Marx would have been proud of you.

by Brian Cahill Thu Dec 19, 2002 02:19

No we aren't in favour of (a) workhouses, (b) slave labour or (c) the Soviet Union. But then you already knew that.

by Ray Thu Dec 19, 2002 10:21

As I said above,
"There is no reason why socialists or anarchists should support a planned economy, ***irrespective of who is doing the planning***"
Emphasis added to the bits that OK and Hunter missed.

The SP position seems to be, "We want a democratically planned economy, so an economy planned by a dictatorship is halfway there, and should be defended". That's just crazy.

Apply it to some other demands.
"We want a democratically controlled police force, so a dictatorial police force should be supported, since its halfway there"
"We want workers to form a mass revolutionary party, so a mass fascist party should be defended, since its halfway there."

Planning is a necessary consequence of democratic control, but it isn't the goal in itself. I don't know whether its because you're too caught up in the 'scientific stages' of socialism, but you're missing the wood for the trees. Planning is not a good in itself that should be supported regardless of who is doing it. You don't offer conditional support for the Pharoahs because the pyramid-building section of their economy was centrally planned, any more than you defend fascist Italy for administering the railways centrally.

The point must always be _workers control_. And frankly, its about time you admitted that workers control was not on Trotsky's agenda when he opposed Stalin, and that he had _never_ been opposed to the control of industry by unelected appointees, as long as he was the one doing the appointing. Forced labour does not become less bad when its done centrally, and its not just a question of changing the people giving the orders. The 'great gains' of the Soviet economy were achieved at gunpoint, and as long as you keep praising them you're going to have to get used to people thinking you support dictatorship.

by MARXIST OBSERVER Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:46

So when you run short of arguments, you call people stupid. Maybe you should reread what you wrote (as well as Marx). You applauded the USSR great gains in production. That was done through: 1. violent cohercion of workers; 2. adoption of Taylorism.
Lenin's praise of Taylorism is to be found in his pamphlet _The Immediate Tasks of tyhe Soviet Government_.
I'd recommend that you watch Chaplin's movie _Modern Times_, so you remind yourself what Taylorism (that Lenin thought so much of) was.

by Andrew Thu Dec 19, 2002 15:32

Brian IMHO your being quite unreasonable in complaining that we are suggesting the SP "are in favour of (a) workhouses, (b) slave labour or (c) the Soviet Union." These things might not have been the SP's preferred option BUT in the name of 'planning' you choose to ('critically') defend the USSR.

You praise the 'gains' of the Soviet Economy, gains almost all of which made in the 1920-50's period when huge sections of the economy were dependent on workcamps and slave labour. From the construction of the tran siberian railroad to the hydroelectric dams slave labour (in which hundreds of thousands died) was vital.

Remove the slave labour and the 'economic miracle' will probably vanish. Remove the massive impoverishment of the pesantry (resulting in another 10-20 million deaths) and you remove the source of 'primitive accumulation' which funded the building of the economy and provided the 'voluntary labour' which the rest of the economy needed.

This is were soviet economic growth came from. You CANNOT claim this growth without also claiming the reasons for this. (Or at least not in any materialist sense). And remember these methods (the labour camp and military discipline for the workforce) were introduced by Trotsky in 1919.

by Pier Paolo Thu Dec 19, 2002 15:53

For a brilliant Marxist critique of Lenin and USSR planned economy, see Harry Cleaver, Reading Capital Politically, at
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/RCPbib.pdf

The publication of the 2nd edition of the book was sponsored by Chumbawamba, so I suppose it's suitable for anarchists (smile)

by Andrew Thu Dec 19, 2002 16:16

I met Harry in Chiapas in 1996, hes certainly from a wing of Marxism that I wouldn't have many problems with.

But of course there is a whole other topic here as well which is the myth that the soviet economy was planned in the first place. When the bureaucracy promote slogans like 'complete the five year plan in four years' this reveals that even they recognised that 'plan' was rather a gradiose term for what was going on.

In reality the 'plan' was little more then the mecahnism for who got promoted in the ruling class and who got purged. Going up from the factory manager every level lied to that above it about how much it could produce and how much it had produced. Going down every level set unrealistic targets for that below it for two reasons 1. The threat of punishment for 'failure' was the only motivation that existed. 2. You could blame your own failure on the failure of your underlings to deliver.

To an extent anyone who works for a big multinational, in particular one where the workers have more knowledge then their managers (EG software industry) will be all too familar with such 'planning'. And just as Windows updates never come out on time so the plans were never filled except in key sectors where the bureaucracy would place all the resources. Indeed one of the major functions of the KGB was to try and provide accurate economic data for those in the Kremlin as everyone recognised the offical plan data was next to worthless.

All those funny stories about factories producing 6 foot nails, or shoes with the heels under the toe are actually a function of soviet 'planning' or at least the need of individual bureaucrats to turn failure into paper sucess.

by Pier Paolo Thu Dec 19, 2002 16:40

I should have written 'planned'. As for Cleaver's book, I'd said Marx's (undistorted) Marxism, rather a certain kind of Marxism. It's very unfortunate that these days many people run a mile when they hear about Marx because of what he is usually associated with.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Dec 19, 2002 20:04

Cleaver has long been a fellow traveller of new lefties, ecologists and anarchists, particularly in his guise as a teacher of Marxist economics at the University of Texas. (!)

by Alex - YFG Fri Dec 20, 2002 18:33

Is China capitalist? Hopefully!! You see, in the end, everyone sees sense and realises that the commies are nothing but violent, corrupt, murderers. Just look at Eastern Europe. It’s no coincidence that the biggest political grouping in Europe is the EPP, and youth political groups in the former USSR want to join YEPP.

You can’t argue with freedom!