Shoe Makers under "Communism"
ÁÎ×Ó¹â Henry C.K.Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú
hliu at SPAMmindspring.com
Tue Jun 6 11:12:56 MDT 2000
Freidman speaks the true US perspective. It is good that the US is confident
enough to openly gloat about the impending sucess of its anti-socialist China
policy. It will help those of us who are trying to expose true US purpose in
Chinese domestic debate.
Below are two messages from to my group of private friends in China whose
identities I need to keep private.
Subject: Matters of Logic
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:54:15 -0400
The Chinese Communist Party opposed the KMT for two main reasons:
1) The KMT, by betraying it orginally socialist commitments, adopted capitalism
and plunged the nation into poverty and chaos, and
2) the KMT failed to defend the national interest and territorial integrity of
The Chinese people supported the CPC because it represented their interest
domestically and the national interest internationally.
The CPC now is faced with the same problems that the KMT faced and is
increasingly committing the same errors that the KMT committed. These errors
caused the KMT to fail, and they will cause the CPC to fail as well.
Capitalism is no doubt a easy way to develop an economy because it allows a
small minority to use their special previleges exploit the majority. The two
examples of successful capitalist nations are the British Empire and the
American Empire. Both of these imperialist powers diffused the internal
contradictions of capitalism through
imperialism. They made capitalism less oppressive at home throgh oppression
The CPC, seduced by the results of capitalism, has adopted experiements in the
"socialist" market economy for some two decades. The results are there for all
to see. In order to maintain the momentum, the experiment has to move more and
more away from "socialist market" toward capitalism.
Wealth is incresingly distributed unequally, corruption and fraud more rampant,
and the economy is incresingly dependent on foreign investment.
All the ills of Western capitalist imperialism that the CPC has fought against
since its founding in 1921, now the CPC has gradually welcomed back into China
with open arms, a little at a time, but unmistakable, not as a temporary
compromise, but as a irreversable and permanent direction.
There are four things wrong with this appraoch.
1) Capitalism cannot succeed in China. History has proved that.
2) Capitalism will lead to foreign domination in China.
3) China will be dismembered into small, politically weak economic entities.
"Greater China" will replace the PRC. Greater China is already the sparatists'
4) If China goes capitalist, the CPC is not the best political instution to run
it, by defintion. Communism will again have to go underground and fight for
another revolution decades from now.
These are matters of logic. One wonders why the CPC is so anxious to commit
suicide, after so many comrades had fallen for the noble causes of building
socialism in China, reviving an China independent of foreign domination and
rebuilding Chinese culture and civilization.
We are 20% of the world's population. If we stand for protecting the interest
of the world's oppressed and poor, the world will follow us.
Instead we choose to follow the world's rich oppressors and be a comprador to
oppress our own people. We will end up neither rich nor a leader. The CPC
will fade from history and China will suffer another century of foreign
oppression. Instead of learning from the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution,
we use those mistakes as excuses to embrace capitalism. Instead of learning
from the mistakes of Soviet revisionism, we use those mistakes as excuses to
embrace US capitalism.
The USSR is no longer there to threaten China geoplitically, but we continue to
hang on to the ghost of a "strategic partnership" with the US, against whom?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:57:54 -0400
The PNTR faces a close vote today in the House. Barring last minute
developments, its passage is generally expected with a very narrow margin.
What does PNTR mean to US-China relations. It is useful to remember that PNTR
is a Cold War relic that originated from the Jackson-Vannick Amendment designed
against the USSR on the issue of Soviet Jewish Emigration. The linkage of
trade to "human rights" has been controversial in US domestic politics from the
start. After the Tiananmen incident in 1989, annual review of MFN status was
adopted by the US under pressure from anti-China forces in the name of human
rights. In terms of US-China relations, NTR is a relic of the Cold War.
Annual review of NTR has been ineffective even in terms of the objectives of
its proponents. This is because NTR is an all or nothing instrument, with no
provision of applying escalating pressure. So its net effect for years has
been mostly propaganda, a focal point for keeping anti-China sentiment alive in
US domestic politics.
The debate surrounding PNTR is also couched in Cold War terms. Those
supporting PNTR claim that PNTR will bring about the demise of the CPC and the
socialist system in China through trade. The opponents claim that defeating
PNTR will more effectively achieve that purpose. Both sides are in agreement
that the CPC and the socialist system should be driven from China. The fact
that so many of China's vocal enemies everywhere, from the US to HK to Taiwan,
support PNTR ought to tell us something, if the Chinese government does not
keep these facts from our people. The debate's view of Chinese domestic
politics is such that the so-called Chinese "reformers" are working for the
same political objective as the Americans: to bring an early end to socialism
These anti-China voices are supporting Chinese "reformers" because they are
unwitting traitors. It is hard to argue with them.
So, just as the adoption of annual review of MFN was an anti-China Cold War
strategy, the issue of PNTR is clearly also an anti-China neo-Cold-War
strategy. The theoretical underpin of this strategy is the assumption that
neo-liberal capitalist market fundamentalism and US-led globalization is the
only workable development model for the world.
This assumption is neither theoretically true, nor has it been supported by
facts. Poverty and misery have been increasing globally since the age of
globalization. The experience of Russia and Eastern Europe is undeniable. The
recurring global financial crises is continuing. A host of US dominated
international institutions, from IMF to WTO are part and parcel of the
globalization devised to enhance US hegemony.
These are the institutions that China is voluntarily surrendering its national
sovereignty. The argument that WTO will force further reform in China is a
shameful argument and traitorous.
It is increasingly undeniable that China's foreign policy and its economic and
trade policies are trapped in confusion about China's national interest in the
neo-Cold War context. China's foreign policy had been (maybe still is)
dominated by a single assumption: that good relations with the US is in Chinese
national interest. Yet, good relations can only be achieved with mutual
intent. For the past decade, there is no evidence that the US regards China as
a potential friend in the neo-Cold War context, without first destroying
socialism in China.
>From the US perspective, China can be viewed as friendly economically only when
China is capitalist and politically only when China becomes a client state of
US hegemony. Fears of China, aside from traditional US racial prejudice, is
based on the apprehension that China is the only major power capable of
resisting US domination of Asia. The denial of this Chinese capability is the
US main strategic aim in Asia. The current US campaign debate on US policy on
China makes no effort to hide this view.
Domestically, Chinese planners are also suffering from the illusion that market
fundamentalism and capitalist neo-liberalism are useful in accelerating the
economic development of China. Evidence of failure of this approach around the
world is blatantly ignored and the fundamental contradictions of capitalism are
excused as temporary inefficiencies of half-hearted reform. Corruption
associated with capitalism is blamed on a few "bad" individual, rather than
recognized as systemic flaws. US$60 billion is wasted by mismanagement while
Chinese children are deprived of books and basic medical care and proper
nutrition. And the solution
is more "reform" toward capitalism, with US neo-imperialism welcomed as
fantasized charitable assistance out of American "good will" toward China. The
compradore model of Hong Kong is imitated blindly by all who see only the
superficial and unequal prosperity and ignore the trade-offs of national
interest and national pride. The policy of "One Country, Two System" is
celebrated as a great success while Hong Kong is turning into an anti-China
base more vicious than under British colonialism. The client state prosperity
model of Taiwan is also
imitated by all who see benefits of being a US client state. The irony is that
if and when China becomes a US "ally" (meaning a client state), US subsidy to
Taiwan and Hong Kong will end. In the long term, a China under US
neo-imperialism can fare no better than Mexico or Brazil.
In many ways, it makes no difference how the vote on PNTR will turn out.
What is important is that China should wake up from its current illusion about
its true national interests. The true national interests in China are:
1) Any government that abandons socialism in China will fail.
2) Any government that relies on foreign support for its mandate will fail.
3) Any government that fails to achieve reunification, crush separatism and
defend China's territorial integrity will fall.
4) The solution to economic problems facing China can only be found from its
own people and within its own resources. Excessive reliance on export will
only lead to the enslavement of the Chinese population for the benefit of
5) Any policy that resists US hegemony globally, and particularly in Asia,
will serve China's national interest.
6) All anti-US forces all over the world are China's friends until US hegemony
7) Understand clearly that reform, while urgently needed, cannot be imported.
8) Understand that no country can be a major power without itself behaving like
a major power, with a strong military and be prepared to use it to defend its
9) China must be led by leaders who have confidence in itself. The political
will to stand on our own two feet must be restored by our leadership.
10) China must reward its own talent, its friends, and not its enemies. Enemies
should be punished not honored.
Louis Proyect wrote:
> Any comments, Henry?
> NY Times, June 6, 2000
> FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> Commies and Demmies
> Now that the smoke has cleared from the debate over whether to grant China
> permanent normal trade with the U.S. and membership in the World Trade
> Organization, it's time for some wild and irresponsible predictions. I'd
> like to start the bidding.
> My prediction is that in the wake of the China vote two parties in the
> world will never be the same again: the Communist Party in China and the
> Democratic Party in America.
> Let's look at each. For years Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China's shift
> to a free market, described China's economic system as capitalism with
> socialist characteristics, or was it socialism with capitalist
> characteristics? I could never keep it straight -- and neither could they.
> But it no longer matters, because China is now committed to capitalism with
> W.T.O. characteristics. And that is going to be a huge challenge. If the
> Chinese Communist Party doesn't adapt, either it will implode or China will
> Here's the problem: By joining the W.T.O., China is basically agreeing to
> replace its current mixed economy -- part free market, part state
> controlled -- which is run by the arbitrary decisions of the Communist
> Party, with an increasingly free-market economy that will abide by
> international rules, on trade, tariffs and investments, set by the W.T.O.
> This means the Chinese Communist Party is going to have to back off and
> shape up or ship out. You can't have a flourishing free enterprise system
> with party hacks interfering with businesses and distorting prices; you
> can't have W.T.O.-style foreign investment without moving toward an
> independent judiciary that is free of arbitrary party meddling and is
> capable of fairly enforcing contracts; and you can't live up to W.T.O.
> norms without government agencies ready to enforce W.T.O. rules, not
> Communist Party whims. All that means a different Communist Party.
> "The ideal situation would be if the Communist Party would serve as the
> bridge and tutor for China's move toward a free-market, rule-of-law-based
> system," argued the Stanford University China scholar Michael Oksenberg.
> "If that doesn't happen voluntarily, I see three other possibilities: One
> is that there will be some catalytic event, like a downturn in the economy,
> that will force the party to adapt, or face losing power and legitimacy.
> Second, there will be a split in the party leadership, between those who
> want to move forward and those who refuse. And third, there could be a mass
> movement from below. The longer the Chinese Communist Party puts off the
> first two, the more likely becomes the last scenario."
> As for the U.S., the China vote was not really a vote about China. It was a
> vote about how Americans feel about globalization. And it revealed a deeply
> fractured Democratic Party. The unions were opposed and advocated building
> walls; the new-economy types, led by President Clinton, favored further
> globalization; and a large group of old Democrats advocated some middle
> ground, but had no leader or program to offer.
> "We are becoming the party of resentment and fear, and that is not who we
> were and that is not who we want to be," said Senator Daniel Patrick
> Moynihan, about the number of Democrats who voted against normal trade with
> The challenge for the Democratic Party, if it is to remain united, is to
> articulate a new progressivism that addresses the worries of working
> Americans about globalization -- without resorting to trade barriers. There
> is obviously a strong feeling among the party's rank and file that Mr.
> Clinton's "progressivism-lite" is insufficient. Which is why a lot of
> Democrats are now groping for a new combination of tax policy, labor policy
> and social policy that could form a modern progressivism. (It would help if
> the unions got their heads out of the sand. Imagine if all the money and
> energy they wasted lobbying against China were applied to health or
> education funding?)
> Without articulating a new progressivism, the Democrats will either become
> indistinguishable from Republicans, especially under George W. Bush, or, if
> the unions have their way, the Democrats will become just kinder, gentler
> So in the wake of the China vote the key question is: Can the Chinese
> Communists become a real democratic party and can the real Democratic Party
> become a true progressive party? Nobody gets to stay the same.
> Louis Proyect
> The Marxism mailing-list www.marxmail.org
More information about the Marxism