[Marxism] The Socialist Revolution Started 90 Years Ago in China

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 17 08:15:43 MST 2009

So then the answers to my questions are "no."  Thanks for confirming what is 
so painfully obvious to the most casual observer.

You know what I love about your response, comrade?  You accuse me of being 
abstract.  You pretend to be concrete.  And in reality?  You provide nothing 
but abstract ideological poses in respones to concrete questions about 
actual historical development, to the actual relations between classes.

So we get "...historic motion that was transition from agrarian to 
industrial society."  Do we?  China under Mao NEVER made a transition from 
agrarian to industrial society.  China today has made a partial transition 
with half the population still tethered to the rural economy and tremendous 
levels of hidden unemployment only through the impact of $750 billion in 
foreign investment and turning the economy into a explicitly capitalist 

So we get.. "the real issue of the Chinese Revolution is the actual 
treatment of the people of China at the hands of imperialism."  Can you 
quantify that comrade?  Can you describe the level of penetration of 
imperialism into China-- and if that penetration was confined to the areas 
surrounding the enclaves, the areas in and around the cities and industrial 
centers, then exactly how does that translate to all the people of China 
when the economy and the country was more than 90 percent rural?

So we get... "That is not to say that the social revolution at the back of 
the curve of industrial development did not express a certain phase in the 
transition from agrarian societ to industrial society."  Does anybody know 
what that means?

Here's something we might examine-- what precipitated the revolutionary 
conflicts that gripped China in the 1920s-- what propelled the "national 
resistance" to imperialism. Was it simply as case of "Basta!" or were there 
real changes in the means and relations of production, a real conflict 
between the development of those means and the existing relations of 
production--  a conflict much deeper than simply a "national conflict" 
against imperial presence?  And was the  allegiance to "nation,"  national 
private property that "allowed"  a bloc between classes, the exact same 
force that determined the attack on the workers by their supposed allies, by 
that full-status member of the Communist International, the KMT?

What about that supposed transition from agriculture to industry?  How had 
industry changed?  How had markets expanded, or not.  How was labor 
accessed, or not, by industry?  Try looking  at those things, rather than 
the ideology that's advertised as a substitute for such history.

You are right in one thing:  I certainly can't figure out why social 
revolution and political insurrection cannot materialize at the front of the 
curve of industrial development, because in fact social revolution and 
political insurrection did do exactly that, materialize in front of the 
curve of industrial development, in Russia in 1917, in China in the 1920s, 
in Bolivia in the 1950s and 60s.

But of course, for you, social revolution and political insurrection never 
materialize in any part of the curve of industrial development-- as 
evidenced by your statement "Today, American society has entered into an era 
of social revolution.  Yea, the productive forces blocked us in the past." 
What?  The US productive forces blocked the revolution?  In what regard? 
Where they not developed enough?  Not enough on the front of the curve?  Or 
were they too developed?  Right, overdevelopment prevents social revolution.

And exactly why today are we in a revolutionary situation?  Are the 
productive forces in the US less developed?  Has the asset stripping of the 
hedge fund managers, LBO specialists, private equity firms, finally created 
a capitalism weak enough, manageable enough to be challenged by workers? 
God bless our brave stockbrokers then.  They too are part of a national 
revolution, no?

For all your bluster, your down home talk about understanding class struggle 
and how and why society moves in antagonism, you manifest only a lack of 
understanding of that struggle and that movement.

2009 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Socialist Revolution Started 90 Years Ago in 

> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
> WL.

More information about the Marxism mailing list