[Marxism] China Influence Grows With Car Sales

Lüko Willms lueko.willms at t-online.de
Wed Apr 22 10:20:37 MDT 2009


On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:33:19 -0400 S. Artesian wrote:
> 
> 
> No I never said imperialism is invincible.  

  Well, how else can I understand all your utterances of those past years, 
especially those in relation to the SUCRE, the internal accounting unit planned 
by several Latin American countries. 

> I have only said, and always  said, it cannot be overthrown, or even 
> damaged, by national capitalisms in the "third world."

  Well the same countries have the same problems when they have 
undergone a socialist revolution. See Cuba. See China, See Vietnam. See 
Korea. In some cases, the special form the revolution took, it was even 
connected with a retreat in comparison to the imperialist countries, to a 
greater dependence instead of the contrary. See GDR, see CSSR, to take two 
examples. 

> China's socialist revolution gave it additonal means to advance?  And 
> exactly what have they advanced to? 

  Being an industrial power and developing the country in a way which was 
unthinkable without the revolution. 

> I say, and other seem to agree with me, capitalism.  You call that an 
> advance?  So do the bourgeoisie.  So does the World Bank, 
> so does the OECD, the WTO.

  Yes, a lot of capital and capitalist relations. Do you want to throw away the 
rise in living standards, the rise in productivity and in production, the growing 
weight of China in the world? 

  Even if you are deterred by the existence of capitalist relations, you should 
be able to see the contraditions, to see the immense progress made by China 
in material terms. You call yourself a "Marxist", I presume, and should be 
able to think in contradictions, i.e. dialectically. 

   Or would you prefer that China was thrown back or frozen in the capitalist 
relationships in agriculture of the 1950ies and 1960ies, to the terror of the 
socalled "Cultural Revolution"? 

   Again: the socialist revolution in a country of the "Third World" does in and 
by itself not change the situation of dependency and exploitation by 
imperialism, it only gives the nation additional forces by creating a real 
national unity. 

  That's what you see in China. 

  One might ask: could China not have made the same progress without 
allowing capitalist relations to grow? I don't know. Maybe. But the fact is: 
China _has_ grown, and that is decisive. 


Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------




More information about the Marxism mailing list