[Marxism] The Chinese Revolution (90 years ago)
sartesian at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 17 15:19:58 MST 2009
A little parsing music, maestro, if you please....
----- Original Message -----
From: <Waistline2 at aol.com>
" First things first. The suffering of the masses in China, since 1978 is
not the result of 1920s Comintern policy or the theory of alliance with any
section of the colonial bourgeoisie."
Remember these words. Comrade Waistline freely acknowledges that the
Chinese masses have been suffering since 1978.
"Or a result of CPC policy under Mao. As previously stated, Mao was
correct to change policy in the late 1920s and 1930s. My kind of guy. Deng
policy was to open China to finance capital.
Period. Connecting Deng in 1978 and Comintern policy is a stretch."
But connecting the "Great Opening" in 1972 to the aftermath of the Cultural
Revolution is not a great stretch. Connecting Mao to the Great Opening and
the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution is not a stretch. Connecting the
rehabilitation of Deng to the response, reaction to the Cultural Revolution
and the Great Opening is not a stretch. That's only 3 degrees of
separation. No stretch at all.
" The bottom line is that China is better today - right now, having throw
out the imperialist. "
Just a few sentences ago, Comrade WL, stating first things first, said the
masses have been suffering since 1978. WTF, better off, suffering-- that's
one hell of a dialectic, isn't it?
""Let me put this in unmistakable terms. A China ruled by Chinese
capitalist is better than a China ruled by Western imperialism. "
Again with the better?
There's no mistaking what Comrade WL is saying. The mistake is in what he
is saying-- in the artificial distinction by Chinese capitalists and Western
imperialism, since in fact the growth of Chinese capitalism and capitalists
is the product of the union of international capitalism and the CCP.
Exactly where did the $750 billion in FDI originate? Exactly who control's
employment, labor conditions, work rules in the SEZ? Who owns the revenue
generated by China's exports?
And that better? That's the product of China's integration into the world
markets; the product of China's support for Western imperialism around the
world, from Haiti to Wall Street.
Okay, no doubt the terms are different, the Chinese are not made to feel
inferior to the Westerners in their own country-- unless of course they
happen to be female, and work for Westerners, or the Chinese from Taiwan.
" In the period in question, in the colonies, the issue is two fold;
exploited peoples and exploiting peoples and classes. The over throw of
imperialism is the precondition for socialism."
The question may be two-fold, but if you study both questions in their
details, you find a single unitary solution-- you find that separating the
struggle against imperialism from the class struggle of the urban and rural
workers, the poor peasantry against the bourgeoisie accomplishes nothing. If
you study it further, particularly in China, you find the material condition
that strangled the development of our bourgeoisie and makes them appear
"patriotic" was not imposed upon China by the imperialists, but existed
prior to imperialism, in the massive fragmentation, atomization, involution
of agricultural production. That involution actually throttled capitalism .
The networks of "home craft" production in the rural areas where so much
excess labor was available, and could produce for revenues below subsistence
level as part of the subsistence was provided by their small plots, competed
effectively with the nascent factory production.. This configuration of
agriculture is what limited the domestic market for "incipient capitalism."
It is not a question of which comes first? The overthrow of imperialism or
the establishment of socialism? It is the question of which class has the
power, the cohesiveness, the essential relations to the means of production
to overthrow imperialism, and in doing that, establish itself as the ruling
class, with a social organization of property and labor unique to itself? If
the answer is the working class, then forcing that class to submit to a
"national anti-imperialist bloc" with the bourgeoisie, making that class
subordinate to the organs of the bourgeoisie goes against the "curve" of
development-- a term Comrade WL so enjoys-- and is suicide for the workers
as the property form that allows the bourgeoisie to be bourgeoisie is
nothing other than a fractal of the property form of imperialism.
"The real issue is that the Chinese revolution advanced when the Chinese
themselves took matter into their own hands. In 1921 Su Yat Sen approach
the Comintern. He was welcomed in because he had an army fighting
imperialism. Put it this way: I have worked with all kinds of folks from
different classes for the past 40 years. I'm the wrong guy to talk with on
the subject of alliances. Plus, I voted for Obama and could care less what
some might think. And would do it all over again if the clock could be
turned back to 2008. Fortunately, 2008 is gone forever."
Stands as its own critique, doesn't it? WL thinks he's the wrong guy to
talk to on this? He thinks he has worked with all kinds of folks? I think
I detect in that imperialist chauvinism. I think I see privileged
first-world, elitist manipulation rather than respect for
"self-determination." Why? Because I can't recall an instance of the LRBW
ever subordinating itself, abandoning its own program in order to form an
alliance with a "progressive" bourgeois fraction. Exactly when and where
has comrade WL subordinated his organization to a national-bourgeois
formation analogous to the KMT? Exactly when and where did the LRBW
subordinate itself, adopt the program of another class's party, suppress
the independent movement of the workers as the ECCI did in China? When?
The LRBW, at least in my memory, never subordinated its program, while it
existed as the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, to the program of a
"democratic" "progressive" "oppressed bourgeoisie." So who is comrade WL
to tell the Chinese workers that they must submit to the KMT, even when,
even AS it means their death? But he would tell them that.
You think 2008 is gone forever comrade? 2012 will be here soon enough, you
can vote for Obama all over again.
More information about the Marxism