[Marxism] China's high speed rail plans

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Thu Sep 3 20:21:43 MDT 2009


No, you're not.  Exactly what do you consider significant?  Do you expect 
workers to suddenly leap forward, articulating a full revolutionary analysis 
of the current and future prospects of China?  I think the protests than 
have developed, whether the precipitating event and/or focus is factory 
layoffs or land expropriations etc. are parts and parcel of the whole, of 
the opposition, sometimes more self-conscious sometimes less self-conscious, 
to the direction of the CCP's economic program.

Again you assume you know exactly what and to what degree items, elements, 
programs are being disputed inside and outside the part when you write:

" There's undoubtedly debate within the circles you mention - as well as
> within the CCP - about the the scope and regulation of foreign investment,
> the revalution of the yuan, the diversification of the state's foreign
> currency reserves, and overreliance on export-led growth at the expense of
> domestic consumption. You'd hardly expect there to be otherwise, and these
> discussions have been well reported in the press and scholarly 
> publications.
>
> But you've positioned yourself well outside of these Chinese reform 
> currents "

You can expect anything you want, but you do not know what the content of 
the debates are unless you have some inside source.  According to my inside 
source, at our last discussion prior his elevation to exalted status in the 
CPUSA, the debates are not about reform, overreliance, revaluaton of the 
yuan, etc.  but about exaclty those social relations, those class relations 
being prompted, quickened, promoted precipitated through this turn to 
capitalism.

And for the record, I have never opposed "in principle the presence of 
foreign firms, the PBC's purchase of USD-denominated securities."  I would 
oppose those things no more than I would oppose say, the government of 
France allowing China,  Japan, or Germany to establish auto factories, steel 
plants in France, no more than I would oppose the European Central Bank 
purchasing US Treasury instruments.  I wouldn't oppose it, I wouldn't 
support it.   No more than I would support or oppose Lula's government in 
Brazil building a dam or a HSR network.  No more for example than I think 
any socialist would or should have supported or opposed the establishment of 
a transcontinental railroad hookup in the 19th century USA, even if some 
jingoists, flim-flam artists, tried to sell it as necessary to a "national 
front," and to protecting US national sovereignty from the destructive 
predation of imperial Britain.

I would neither oppose nor support the presence of foreign firms anymore 
than I think socialists in the US today should support the construction of 
dams in the Imperial or San Joaquin Valleys of California, even though the 
big landowners there are quick to point out the "benefits to all" of such 
efforts, of the number of jobs of agricultural workers that will be saved 
with "effective flood control."

We are not about opposition or support of infrastructure, investment, or the 
accumulation of foreign hard currency reserves.

The bourgeoisie and their agents do what they do to maintain the stability 
and dominance of their property, their mode of production, their profits, as 
the actual actions behind the bullshit from the landowners in the San 
Joaquin Valley have proven so many times. What is at stake is the social 
relations of production established in those actions.  The opposition 
doesn't come in some misguided isolationism, or nationalism, just as the 
support doesn't come in the mindless flogging of gross numbers.  The 
opposition or support is opposition to one class and support of the other 
class in establishing the social relations of production, not the 
instruments of production.

As for your "spark a run on the dollar would lead to a grave international 
economic and  political crisis whose outcome would more likely than not be 
catastrophic  rather than positive for both the Chinese and American working 
classes,"  that is simply absurd and is nothing but the same type of baloney 
that some, in particular Doug Henwood spews to justify his support of the US 
bailout of the banks-- because to not support that bailout would have 
consequences that would supposedly by catastrophic.  Do you support the 
bailouts, Marv?

What makes you think that the current course of the CCP, the current 
symbiosis of the US Treasury and the PBC, is not going to prove disasterous 
and not just for the US and Chinese workers, but for workers all across 
Asia, Latin America, Europe, North America?  Haven't we seen enough of 
capitalism to know what it's response to declining profits, overproduction, 
must be?  Or as Ripley put it in Aliens, "Did IQs drop drastically while I 
was away?"

Yesterday, or the day before, LW and Nestor were arguing how the Chinese 
revolution has to be given credit for stimulating capitalism to develop 
Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, etc. etc. even if only in defense, response to the 
revolution.  [Note to Nestor:  Marshall Plan, known as European Recovery 
Program, developed by Clayton and Kennan in the US State Dept.  named for US 
Sec of State Marshall, in effect 1948-1952 involving capital injections and 
transfer to rebuild the economies of the Western European countries and 
contain the threat of revolution within those countries, while 
simultaneously contain the Soviet Union].   Well, you don't get the credit 
without taking the responsibility.  So if the CCP gets "credit" for that, 
then they have to take responsibility for the subsequent strengthening of 
capitalism

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marv Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] China's high speed rail plans






More information about the Marxism mailing list