[Marxism] China Influence Grows With Car Sales
sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Apr 22 14:02:39 MDT 2009
Let me use this opportunity to respond Lueko, Nestor, and Michael Friedman.
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
> 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
> rise in living standards, the rise in productivity and in production, the
> weight of China in the world?
> Even if you are deterred by the existence of capitalist relations, you
> be able to see the contraditions, to see the immense progress made by
> 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
> China _has_ grown, and that is decisive.
> Lüko Willms
> Frankfurt, Germany
More information about the Marxism