>>It is true that most of the TW are not part of this global
>>economy. China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage
>>production....
>>
>>Cheers, Anthony
>
>The implication is that China would be a richer place if it exported
>less, and thus subsidized the U.S. less--that each container that
>leaves Shanghai for Long Beach is a subtraction to Chinese living
>standards.
>
>I cannot see how that could possibly be true...
>
>Brad DeLong
I think China as a nation will have a higher level of productive
forces than now if it continues to expand its participation in the
global capitalist economy, exporting goods to the USA or whatever,
without glitches like protectionism by the USA & other rich nations.
At the same time, the same industrial development through capitalism
will uproot the majority of peasants, intensify labor discipline of
proletarians, reduce their standards of living, pollute the
environment, etc. for at the very least some decades to come (as it
already has to a significant degree). After a period of industrial
misery, Chinese proletarians may gain higher standards of living _if_
they win some victories in class struggles, though that's not at all
guaranteed.
On the other hand, the above may not happen, in that the capitalist
road may create enough worker, peasant, and/or ethnic minority
uprisings to change China's political course. Or maybe the world
capitalist economy will tank. Who knows?
Yoshie
