[Marxism] The class nature of the Chinese state
jbustelo at gmail.com
Fri Oct 26 18:28:21 MDT 2007
Paula writes: <<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.
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."
The question is not whether the Chinese produce "more value" than the market
recognizes. It is that something happens to that Value. In the case of
exports, there's simply no question. The U.S. gets $300 worth of stuff for
$30. That's a transfer of value FROM China and TO the United States. Ditto
in the case of imports. Every time China pays, say, $10-$15 for a media
monopoly CD or DVD that's worth really maybe a couple of bucks, there is a
transfer of value. It is also true of products made in China and sold into
its internal market.
Unequal exchange is one of the main forms that imperialist exploitation
takes in the world today. Historically, Marxists have been used to thinking
in terms of raw materials and agricultural products, but it isn't the nature
of the product but of the producer that makes the difference.
You want to say that China is the economic powerhouse because of the
inherent economic value of its total production, and therefore it *MUST* be
imperialist. What I am pointing out is that the value created DOES NOT
REMAIN in China, it get transferred by the mechanisms of the world market
and world financial system to the imperialist countries.
This is one of the things that in my view makes China a semicolonial
More information about the Marxism