[Marxism] China's high speed rail plans

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Tue Sep 1 15:16:09 MDT 2009


Hopefully, my last on this, until we get back to the nits and grits of 
railroad economics.

Contrary to what Nestor writes-- No that is not the whole thing.  Not by a 
mile.  Does not that "whole thing" Nestor describes sound familiar to 
anyone?  Doesn't it sound like we've been through this before?

Doesn't it sound exactly like the old "stages" argument-- where capitalism 
must have its day can't be skipped over, because capitalism means 
development-- as long as its closely supervised by....by whom?

I'm sure some imagine that what China has done is little more than an NEP on 
a grand scale.  But that is exactly not what it has done.  It hasn't made a 
tactical concession after a devastating civil war. It certainly isn't 
protecting its own workers and population from abuse by capitalists big and 
small, foreight and domestic.

 It isn't "buying time"  while supporting, however misquided some of that 
support might be, the advance of international proletarian revolution.  And 
that-- that advance is the whole thing.

It seems to me Nestor is trying to transpose the "useful idiot" label to 
capitalism, as long as its a Communist Party using the capitalism.

Just to refresh your memories, Gomulka "made use" of capitalism but didn't 
"bow down" to it.  Hungary "made use" of capitalism, subsequent to the 
Soviet invasion, and they didn't bow down to it.  Hell, even the USSR "made 
use" of capitalism without bowing down to it-- utilizing gas and oil exports 
to gather up hard currency and win diplomatic and political leverage over 
Europe.

They all made use of capitalism and the world markets, without bowing down, 
until so time as the world markets decided it had no use for them, and then 
the bowing, deeply, started.

And I CAN DENY that the whole thing is whether or not China is using the 
"proceeds from its production of consumer goods for intensive investment in 
infrastructure" because China has in fact NOT used its supposed proceeds 
from its export driven production to finance this round of stimulus.

 It has used debt, leverage, and radical increase in loan quantities from 
regional and local banks to jump start this program-- while the central bank 
continues to invest in US Treasury Instruments.

We can absolutely deny that China has used proceeds from its export driven 
production to finance this round of stimulus, when China sees fit to 
authorize the CIC, the sovereign wealth fund, to participate in syndicated 
equity purchases to bail out the lead real estate firm behind the rapidly 
emptying Canary Wharf, but doesn't take those funds for domestic 
investment-- for eliminating pollution from lead smelters, for improving 
mine safety, etc.

We can deny that the whole thing is whether China "makes use" of capitalism, 
or "bows down to it"  and when those claiming that as the "whole thing" are 
simply exhibiting the classically political-economist confusion between the 
means of production as objects, and the means of production as commodities.

So, no the whole thing is not "making use" or "bowing down,"  the whole 
thing is rather what class is being strengthened by the path, the policy, 
the economic programs currently in place in China.  Who's getting stronger? 
The proletariat as a class conscious of itself?  Or the bourgeoisie in China 
as a class?

The bourgeoisie, in all their international glory are not at all useful, and 
not at all idiots when it comes to preserving their property.

Those who think they "know the whole thing" are the ones who are denying 
what is going on in China.


----- Original Message ----- 
iFrom: "Néstor Gorojovsky" <nmgoro at gmail.com>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] China's high speed rail plans


> 2009/9/1 Lüko Willms <lueko.willms at t-online.de>:
>
> Yes, this is the whole thing again. Civilized countries close the road
> to those who want to civilize themselves, said someone once.
> Currently, there is a Korean economist who stresses the same by saying
> that developed countries kick the ladder they used to climb in order
> no one climbs it again. Whether this ladder can be climbed without in
> some definitive way breaking out ("delinking") with imperialist
> control of the global market (and global does not mean foreign trade
> but, essentially, other countries´ "domestic" markets) or not, is a
> settled point for Marxists: this simply can´t be done. It is one thing
> to _use_ capitalism, and a different one to _bow_ to capitalism. The
> whole thing when it comes to the China debate is whether the Chinese
> leadership _uses_ capitalism or _bows_ to it, which implies bowing to
> imperialism. China is not doing the latter. Doing the former, of
> course, entails the most serious risks. But no serious debate can be
> held on China if we do not start by the evidence that "the Chinese use
> the proceeds from their production of consumer goods for extensive
> investments in the infrastructure", that is they are bringing down to
> Earth the bourgeois fantasies of the Latin American bourgeoisies. If
> somebody believes that this has little or nothing to do with the
> relative weight of the bourgeoisie in the social structures of China
> and, say, Brazil (or, daresay, India), this is a mistake.





More information about the Marxism mailing list