[Marxism] The Chinese Revolution (90 years ago)

S. Artesian 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? 
With whom?

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 mailing list