Re: China and socialism

[Waistline2]

There are also reports of college students who jumped from high-rise dormitory buildings in protest of the governments timid "peaceful" policy over Taiwan independence.  The suicide-protestors wanted the government to take Taiwan for force right now and stand up to US bullying.   The report that an 18-year-old killed himself over lack of money to pay college fees proves only that 18-year-olds need better counseling.  The fact of the matter is that 18-year-olds all over the world flirt with suicide for all kind of reasons, much of which tragically irrational and childish.   As for whether China would be a good model for the rest of the Third World, let the people of the Third World decide for themselves. We don't need self-righteous academics in the West to pronounce what is an ideologically correct model for the Third World.  The sad fact is that the Western left have done little for the Third World beyond destructive talk. Until members of the Western Left can control their own imperialists governments and improve the lot of the poor in their own societies, they had better be a bit more humble about what is correct. There is a lot about China that is not perfect and a lot of people within China are trying very hard to correct these problems. But believe me, poverty for all is a bad trade-off for ideological purity.   The NY Times also printed other articles on China recently:   >>The advent of the vacation is a relatively new phenomenon in China that coincides with the emergence of a new middle class with disposable income. Wealthy Chinese are now flocking to destinations around Southeast Asia and beyond. Others are exploring domestic sites like Qingdao, a popular getaway for people from Beijing. http://nytimes.com/2004/07/30/international/asia/30qing.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091444128-2e9057b7RGa7p+S9Pv+yyg   New Boomtowns Change Path of China's Growth   http://nytimes.com/2004/07/28/international/asia/28china.html   South China Morning Post (HK) 7/30/04   More are becoming upwardly mobile, but birth still counts   Mainlanders' chances of social advancement through merit have improved in the past two decades, but birth still matters for those aiming for political careers.   A report on social mobility by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences released yesterday shows it is getting easier for mainlanders to upgrade their status within one generation.   Before 1980, only 32 per cent of the workforce was able to find a job better than their fathers'.   More than 60 per cent had no choice but to accept their parents' station.   Since then, however, 40 per cent of working people have managed to advance professionally.   Mainlanders are also changing between jobs more frequently that before.   Before 1980, 86 per cent of the labour force never changed jobs throughout their working life. But from 1990 to 2000, 54 per cent took their chances and ventured out to seek new jobs.   "The rapid development of the economy has created more occupational professions, and many of them are of high level," the report said.   "The economic reform policy provides an institutional environment where people can improve their social class on their capabilities and merit.   "As a result, Chinese society is becoming more open and mobile."   But the report noted it was unlikely that a Bill Clinton or John Edwards - who were born into working-class families but rose to political prominence - would appear in China.   To enter the "government official" occupational category, family background remains the determining factor.   For every 100 people whose fathers are cadres, seven become government officials themselves. For workers, the ratio is one in 100; for farmers, even less than one.   The work mainlanders covet the most is in "government and social administration", based on decades of polling by the academy.   People tend to think this public service position will bring them power, the report says: "Without any doubts, cadres are the most powerful people in the country."   But for those whose aspirations lie outside the political scope, their fates seem more in their own hands.   Educational credentials rank as the No1 factor for a good career, the report says. College graduates have three times more opportunities in the job market than those who only have high school diplomas, even though the latter might come from better family backgrounds.   But for well-educated rural people, prospects are less rosy. The urban registration system, which works to prevent rural people from moving freely into urban areas, still limits their work prospects.   Three years ago, the academy caused an uproar when it published a study on how the composition of Chinese society had changed over the decades. It was seen by analysts as an effort by the leadership to embrace the rising private sector.   But the study confirmed that the social status of farmers and workers had declined significantly although they were once hailed as the pillars of the socialist system in China.       People's Daily (CCP/PRC) 7/31/04   Chinese society brewing dramatic structural changes, report   Entitled "Flow in Contemporary Chinese Society", a heavyweight report released on July 28 by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) caused wide concern. The report pointed out that in the coming eight to ten years, China will witness a leap in its professionalism level, a huge expansion of middle classes and sharp reduction of agricultural workers. The Chinese society is marching toward an open one.   Lu Xueyi, a CASS research fellow who led the research team, received an interview on this report.   Q: what's the most important discovery of this report?   A: That is, the current social strata structure cannot meet the demand of the development of socialist modernization. It is only an embryonic form of "modernization". Some strata need shrinking and some others should be expanded.   Children of lower strata face bigger barriers to higher ones, and social resources gather towards higher classes   Q: "Social flow" refers to social members shifting from one social position to another, and what are the trends of social flow in today's China?   A: Our latest report revealed that among the current ten major strata, some still need to be reduced in scale (agricultural workers still account for 44 percent) while others enlarged (middle classes only stand for 15 percent). While children of those in the lower part of the social ladder are facing bigger barriers on their way into higher orders, and the society's economic, organizing and cultural resources are gathering towards upper classes.   These trends will cast a negative impact on the forming of a just, rational and open social flow pattern and strata structure, which are not conform with the socialist modernization process and are likely to trigger off social crisis.   Q: Why the social strata failed to enlarge or reduce?   A: One of the most important reasons is blocked social flow channels.   System barriers left over from the planned economy period-such as rigid systems in residency, employment, personnel and social security-are blocking people flowing to higher social positions, and a just, rational and open modernized pattern of social flow has not been formed.   Q: Since the reform and opening up two decades ago, according to what principles did China's social flow realize?   A: Before the opening up, social status are chiefly born. While after it the social orders were broken, with postnatal elements, such as individual efforts, gradually dominating the social flow system.   Q: There is an important conclusion in your report-the professionalism level of the Chinese society is going higher, could you explain it?   A: Since 1978, China's professional structure has been improving. Compared with 1992, in 2000 the proportion of lower-layer employees (industrial and agricultural workers) had dropped by 8.17 percent, while that for middle classes increased 7.2 percent. For 18 years employees engaged in medium and higher level professions have been increasing, forming the trend of "moving up".<<   The problem is complex and not single-dimensional.  Building socialism is not a simple matter of choosing the right ideological escalator.   I am not defending China blindly as some would accuse me of doing. My own criticism of Chinese economic policy has been very vocal and in print on the record for a few years. There is a difference between trying to help and trying to obstruct.  A lot of energy is being spent in China on how to combat income disparity without stifling growth. But Marty Hart-Landsberg appears to worry more about the undesirability of undue China influence on the rest of the Third World, a perverse theme that the CIA has been promoting lately by using the US Left to diffuse Chinese political influence globally, than about objective economic achievements and problems in China.  Its a repeat of Trotskyites being welcomed in US universities that eventually turn neo-conservative.   At any rate, fortunately for the world, what Marty Hart-Landsberg says matters little outside of leftist circles.  Most Third World peasants will never read him and if they did, mostly likely they will not find him interesting or relevant.   Henry C.K. Liu