[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?
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
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
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
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
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.
More information about the Marxism