[Marxism] The class nature of the Chinese state

Paula Paula_cerni at msn.com
Fri Oct 26 17:45:44 MDT 2007

Joaquin wrote:

>Purchasing Power Parity OBSCURES rather than REVEALS this reality.
>The difference between the two measures is an indicator of the degree to
>which imperialism exploits the country in question based through mechanisms
>of the manipulated world market and manipulated world financial system. Is
>it rocket science to recognize that if a product made in the USA is worth 
>but when made in China it is only worth 1/10 of X, that China is getting
>royally screwed?

Joaquin, your own examples argue against you. If a product made in the USA 
is "worth" X (in current exchange prices), and the same product in China is 
"worth" 1/10 of X (in current exchange prices), then current exchange prices 
are underestimating the real value of the Chinese product by a factor of 10. 
Or, in other words, Chinese workers are producing ten times more value than 
the current exchange prices statistics suggest.

That's the main reason why people use purchasing power parities instead.

>On Africa: The figures on remittances ARE NOT irrelevant in two
>ways: first, they show how ridiculously tiny China's direct investments are
>in Africa.

Alright then. Please provide us with data comparing those remittances with 
Chinese, British, French and American operations in Africa. And please be 
kind enough to tell us what your sources are, so that we may check. Thanks.

Finally, here are some recent book reviews on China, from The Nation


More information about the Marxism mailing list