[Marxism] The Chinese Revolution (90 years ago)

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Nov 17 09:06:55 MST 2009


In a message dated 11/17/2009 9:46:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
sartesian at earthlink.net writes:

I'll make you a deal-- you get Waistline to read my "thin list," and  you 
read Huang's studies, and in return I'll read every book on the list you  
provided, including the one on Mao's political thought.   Deal?


Comment
 
Sounds fair. I'm already finished. What a load of ideological garbage.  
Everything is predicated upon theoretical concepts of no validity. Much of  the 
hard data in "Tragedy" - which I admit I had forgotten, I picked up years  
ago during my brief period of filtration with Maoism. I have in fact read 
much  of Trotsky writings over the years. I embrace a very different concept 
of the  meaning of social revolution. You simply believe that social 
revolution is  always possible given the right balance of subjective forces and the 
disposition  of the revolutionary vanguard. You proceed from an assumption 
called "proper  revolutionary demands and correct program."  
 
I do not. 
 
In America and at the front curve of industrial development, revolution did 
 not fail to materialize because of the deposition of the subjective 
factors for  social revolution. The exact opposite is the case. The subjective 
disposition of  the communist - name your brand, expressed a distinct 
quantitative boundary of  development where social revolution was not possible. 
Reform of the system was  possible. 
 
Social revolution does not break out based on the circuit of capital or  
crisis of overproduction. Social revolution is driven by a revolution in the  
material power of production.  
 
Once the industrial system entrenched itself, it must then pass through all 
 its quantitative boundaries of development. Not only is it impossible for 
the  workers to overthrow capital at the front of the curve, no section of 
the  working class can form such a consciousness. The serf does not overthrow 
 feudalism because he can't. New classes birthed and existing in antagonism 
with  the feudal order - the old production relations, overthrow feudalism. 
The  same with capital and the industrial system. 
 
Mr. Liu basically describes this process from the point of view of an  
economist. 
 
A new technological regime must enter history formation and begin the  
destruction of the old production relations corresponding to the industrial  
organization of labor.  Then a period of social revolution emerges at the  
front of the curve. Thus, we - all of us, were locked into a quantitative  
boundary of history. 
 
You hate the no win scenario and believe correct thinking is sufficient to  
change history. This of course is the appeal of Trotsky and the concept of  
permanent revolution.  
 
This incidentally, the above is why the Stalin regime could not be  
dislodged. All talk about overthrowing the bureaucratic order was sheer  nonsense, 
equivalent to suggesting one could overthrow the trade union  bureaucracy. 
It is not possible because industrial society and bureaucracy exist  in the 
category of non-subjective history and as such are subject fully to the  laws 
of development of productive forces. You believe bureaucratic rule grows  
pout of bad people. 
 
See, if the revolutionaries in South America just did things your way  
everything would be peaches and socialism. Such was the crux of your exchange  
with Nestor. 
 
We are now living a textbook description of Marx outline of the law of  
social revolution. The new dispossessed proletarians exist outside the system 
of  value production with no connecting tissue with employed capital. Here is 
the  antagonistic ingredient missing in the past. 
 
The social revolution at the back of the curve of industrial development,  
i.e., in th countries leaving feudalism opened a window of opportunity to 
the  revolutionaries won to the brilliance of Marx. Their task was 
industrialization  or to carry out the industrial revolution. Preferably on the basis 
of socialism.  The Chinese Revolution freed China from control by world 
imperialism. That's  good enough for me. 
 
Here is the crux of the problem in your own words.
 
>> It's a thin list because I am referring to examinations of this  
specific 
period, and examinations that directly take on the notion of  "stages," 
"national democratic revolution"-- or whatever else you want to  call it, 
alliances with the "national" bourgeoisie, and the results of the  
subordination of the workers' movement to the CCP. <<
 
The only possibility for socialism in China, between 1921 and the victory  
of the Chinese Revolution in 1949, was predicated upon the defeat - NOT OF  
DOMESTIC CAPTIAL, BUT IMPERIALISM. This is not a theory of stages my friend. 
 Alliance with the a section of domestic capital in China - KMT, as stated  
previously grew the CPC from 300 to 60,000. Now the early organizers of the 
CPC  were fully under the spell of a European concept of social revolution. 
Mao broke  this spell. 
 
Winning China for the Chinese was the goal of the Chinese Revolution.  
Within the Chinese Revolution the communist came to power. 

I of course am not under the spell of European or American Marxist concepts 
 of the path of the industrial revolution and at what point social 
revolution  emerges at the front of the curve. Social revolution was not possible in 
the  past century. Nor do I embrace a classical European concept of class. 
Ask  yourself this: why have I never confused and labeled the decomposition 
of the  industrial form of our working class and the emergence of a 
dispossessed  proletariat the so-called lumpen proletariats? For a decade I have 
argued  against this nonsense. 
 
I see the world different. 
 
You think it is because I do not read. 
 
This is flawed thinking. 
 
WL. 
 
 
 
 




More information about the Marxism mailing list