[Marxism] China investing heavily in infrastructure: Railway
lueko.willms at t-online.de
Tue Sep 1 09:29:10 MDT 2009
S. Artesian (sartesian at earthlink.net) wrote on 2009-09-01 at 09:23:46 in
about Re: [Marxism] China investing heavily in infrastructure: Railway:
> As for the discrepancy in track-kilometers, or track mileage, I don't know
> how they count track-miles in China, but in the US the standard is to count
> exactly that -- track-miles, so if you have 4 tracks running between 2
> points 50 miles apart, that's 200 track miles.
The UIC counts _line_ kilometers, and then tells out of which those _line_
kilometers have two or more tracks. I thought that was clear, but apparently
it isn't. I didn't mention total _track_ length, but the _network_ length, which
has an extension independently of being single or double tracked. So we
have been talking at cross purposes. But also thanks for the reminder, that
this is a list by USanians, of Usanians, and for USanians.
> Now this entire exercise started when you claimed, suggested, stated,
> asserted, whatever that China had possibly overtaken the US in freight
No, it started with me reporting about extensive investment by China in its
infrastructure, and especially in railways.
But it seems that I have hit a US patriot in his heart when mentioning that
China has bypassed the US capitalist freight railway companies in the
tonnage transported by rail.
And then you tell me that the US freight companies are much more
profitable, by having cut back on each and every kind of manpower, than
their Chinese counterpart. Strange. Well, I know why I am not calling myself a
> So where is the overtake in freight rail transportation?
Look at the numbers.
> Where is the overtake in labor productivity? Somewhere in the future?
> I have no doubt
> if China were to develop fully, to realize the potential of the labor and
> resources it has, it would by the very nature of its population exceed the
> current and future state of US capitalism.
That's the point.
> To do that however, to realize the potential of that labor and those
> resources, it will require a.... [here it comes] revolution,
> overthrowing the capitalist development which the CCP
> has administered in and to the country; and to do that will require an
> international revolution.
Ah, and until then the Chinese have to wait and lay their hands idle, do
nothing, stay out of development, stop building railways, etc, until Mr.
Artesian has organized his right rrrrrrevolution?
I understood from your previous postings that you even had preferred that
we would stay in feudal times, roll back the Great French Revolution etc, just
to avoid capitalism.
More information about the Marxism