[Marxism] China Influence Grows With Car Sales

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Apr 22 14:02:39 MDT 2009

Let me use this opportunity to respond Lueko, Nestor, and Michael Friedman.

Firstly, Lueko:

Lueko's post, reproduced in the main below because it warrants it, is almost 
breathtaking in the ease with which it tosses Marx's analysis, and that of 
Trotsky, and Rosa, and yes, even Lenin, out the window, without even 
bothering to open the window.   If I were one ever left speechless, I would 
be speechless after reading it.

But along with despair, I am also impervious to speechlessness.

In a nutshell, what Lueko has done is take the remarkable insights into the 
processes of capitalist expansion investigated by Trotsky, and other, into 
permanent revolution and uneven and combined development and reversed them. 
Now we get the socialist revolution as being the necessary pre-requisite for 
the establishment of capitalism, and that is supposed to represent and 
advance for the emancipation of labor.

In truth, this is nothing but the "stagist" theory, and "developmental" 
theory, put on a Moebius strip.  In practicality, this is nothing but the 
opposite identity, the mirror image of the state capitalist argument with 
state capitalism now applauded instead of condemned and with the "new" class 
of "state capitalists" now acting as agents of a rapidly receding 
proletarian revolution.  Idealism as a characterization of Lueko's posturing 
is a gross understatement.

Lueko's arguments are riddled with internal contradictions.  On the one 
hand: " 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."   On the other hand:  "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."

 Yes Virginia, I do call myself a Marxist, but "thinking dialectically" 
analyzind dialectically is not "on the one hand, while on the other hand." 
It, dialectical analysis is ground in the actual organization of labor, in 
the exchange between the power of labor and the conditions of labor.  So is 
the proletarian revolution induces greater dependence, greater exploitation, 
and that dependence and that exploitation have been the basis for the 
suppression of the "nation"  of "national unity," then how can this 
revolution actually create the conditions for the emancipation of labor. 
How can it even create the least bit of trouble of damage to the advanced 
capitalist network?   In this regard it is clear that Lueko again is right 
on board with the state capitalists, and right on board with stage theorists 
who maintain that the "backward" conditions of the "third world" countries 
prohibit, prevent, exclude the prospects of a successful revolution actually 
creating the conditions for the emancipation of labor based on the actual 
power of the working class.  In this regard it is clear that Lueko must then 
regard the "national," "social" revolutions to be inadequate and essential 
only as a transition stage to capitalist development.

As far the improvement in living standards in China, there is more myth than 
fact to the improvement in living standards.  China's GINI coefficient, a 
measure of the equality of living standards and the equality of the 
distribution of social services, medical care, education etc. used to be 
among the best.  It is now among the worst, right up there with the US's 
gini coefficient.  That's some national unity, isn't it, that finds its 
expression in accelerating inequality?  That's some real hurt put on 
advanced capitalism, isn't it, creating a rich, powerful, well-cared for 
bourgeoisie, while super-exploiting young women in factories?

Lueko makes a fetish of "growth," as if it were a thing in itself.  For him 
growth, like the commodity is opaque and doesn't include, despite his claims 
to thinking dialectically and seeing contradictions, the social relations 
that weaken the workers and strengthen the international network of 
capitalism.  When simultaneous with Deng's reforms and opening of the 
country to FDI, China supported Savimbi was that a "challenge" to the 
advanced capitalist countries?   When China sends 140 police officers to 
Haiti to support the US occupation, to prove to the advanced capitalist 
countries what a reliable partner it can be, is that a challenge?  Well, all 
those things are part of the growth that Lueko finds decisive.

What we have with Lueko's analysis is the telescope of the telescoped 
revolution reversed with socialism receding further and further into the 
background; with the working class unable to take power, to organize 
production and thus ceding the power to organize the economy, the social 
relations of production, to the  bourgeoisie. And that is what he is 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lüko Willms" <lueko.willms at t-online.de>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] China Influence Grows With Car Sales

>  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.

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