Something somewhat different

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Mon Nov 10 08:38:59 MST 2003


In a message dated 11/9/03 7:42:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
dmschanoes at earthlink.net writes:

"The [Chinese steel] industry's growth is rippling around the globe, 
prompting BHP, Billiton and Rio Tinto in Australia, and CVRD in Brazil, the 
world's three largest iron ore miners to ramp up production and increase 
prices.  
 
Now that's pretty interesting.   But it gets even more interesting, as the 
central government is worried about this overinvestment but finds itself unable 
to stop it. 
 
Steel companies are back enthusiastically by state-owned banks.  Once shy of 
lending to private companies, the banks now seek out entrepreneurs to 
diversify their assets away from government enterprises." 
 
Does this sound like an earthquake in the making or what?

DMS

Comment

Been trying to follow China and much of its official information and 
pronouncements is cloaked in ideological garble and far to often the economic language 
of our modern bourgeoisie.  The state sector of the economy and the limits 
placed on the law of value – which cannot be abolished by government fiat, seems 
to be an indicator of the dimensions of property relations. It appears that 
an intense struggle is brewing that is expressed as monetary policy over the 
direction investment and currency relations. There is a powerful anti-dollar 
lobby, which has military implications. 

The social revolution in China, since 1949 has been from agriculture to 
industry and in the past two decades to a post industrial society – all at the same 
time. The upheaval in the countryside is a historical process. Property 
relations are important. China' s growth rate began acceleration before the 
collapse of Soviet power and the overthrow of public property – state owned, 
relations. 

Steel remains an indicator of heavy industry and internal infrastructure 
development. The 
rumblings of the earthquake are being felt. Price cannot be increased simply 
because one wants to make more money in a tighter market. Apparently a power 
sector of China political authority are beefing up the strength of state owned 
banks while slowly allowing "independent banks" to expand. This is my 
understanding of articles in the People's Daily. 

Within this equation Henry C.K. Liu has written a piece for Asia Times 
advancing a body politic calling for a fundamental rupture with the dollar world.  
The essence of this line of approach is that in a world of fiat money trade 
cannot lead to development and further "development" has been defined on the 
basis of the Western bourgeois economic concepts – in modern times. The logic of 
Henry's argument is that the greater the trade and exchange with the US, based 
on the dollar, the more the explosive growth of the Chinese economy will 
decline. 

I am not sure but at this stage it seems the steel industry is directly 
primarily toward internal infrastructure development and secondary – the external 
exchange markets, based on the dollar as the medium, whose only attribute is 
allowing for the technological transfer.  Has this transfer reached a decisive 
stage where relative parity exists? 

One can only follow the law of value on the basis of existing data. 

I feel the rumbling and cannot yet discern its magnitude or property 
dimensions. China is in 
profound transition and the transition is to post industrial society. No one 
can leap over the 
industrial era, in history. There is no such thing as a "transition to 
socialism." 

The transition is from agriculture to industry and within the framework 
property relations were fought out. The transition – since the rise of industry and 
the time of Marx, has always been to communism and within this transition, 
enormous political struggles – class battles and assertions, take place. 
Industrialization was the basis of the transition to communism and fought out in the 
political superstructure as the battle over property relations that define the 
character of reproduction. History posed the question as bourgeois 
reproduction versus socialist reproduction; bourgeois accumulation versus proletarian 
accumulation or consolidation of the historically evolved social relations 
called capital on a distinct property basis. 

Melvin P. 


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list