Re: Scriptures - reply to David Schanoes
David wrote: "What you don't know about it, Juriaan, is that there are significant debates and arguments going on at every level of the CCP about these social changes, and there is a considerable left wing which cannot reconcile the expanding capitalism with the historical allegiance of the party to Marx and collectivized property. This disagreement and opposition isn't a well kept secret; it seems even the Christian Science Monitor has bothered to pay attention to the discussions going on inside the CCP and the country rather than search through texts for quotes." Of course these "significant debates" are occurring, even without knowing all the intricate details of the discussion (I don't speak Chinese), it's obvious to anybody who can think, that they would occur. But what needs to be understood is why the recourse to capitalist methods is being adopted at all, rather than pursuing socialist alternatives involving a variety of ownership forms which socialist state power makes possible. In part, obviously, the CCP acknowledges it needs foreign expertise and technology to develop the Chinese economy, and in this sense the need for a capitalist sector is quite possibly inevitable under the given circumstances. But also, the relapse into capitalist methods and ideology, emphasising individual responsibility and initiative, has a lot to do with a traditional organisational culture of monolithism, bureaucratism, official privilege, political paranoia and dogmatism, which stifled individual responsibility and initiative, and creates unworkable situations and laxity. Then when it comes to the crunch, you get these wild gyrations of policy, lapidary phrases and slogans, flipflops between petrified dogma and "anything goes". For a socialist economy, as Ernest Mandel emphasised, things like individual freedoms, civil rights and popular democracy are not a political luxury, but essential for well-functioning systems of production, distribution and consumption - without them, citizens will lack sufficient personal motivation and personal interest to participate to increase the productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of the economy. There's a big difference between the "political hegemony" of the CCP and a "monopoly of political power" by the CCP, because if you have "political hegemony", this means you are the ruling force in the society, but you "rule" vis-a-vis other political tendencies which you admit the existence of, prove your superiority to, and which are legally tolerated insofar as they respect the PRC's basic norms and laws, without panic. You have to acknowledge that liberalism, social democracy, christianity, Islam etc. are long-lasting trends and that you cannot wipe them out, the only question is whether the socialists or communists hold power, or whether they do not hold power, and how they hold power. As soon however as you become afraid of admitting the existence of other political/ideological/cultural tendencies, and repress them as a "threat" rather than challenge them and defeat them through an open and fair debate, then really what you are saying is that you happen to have no real confidence in the superiority of your own ideas and methods, and that you have little confidence in the ability of the working class and the peasantry to make good decisions and judgements - hence a conservative defence of the status quo necessarily follows. Then you're in the same camp as all those people who argue that the development of poorer countries is always conditional on the establishment of a middle class and that the working classes and the peasantry are incapable of devising new cultural norms themselves or raising the cultural level. Fine and good, but then you have to admit you are being conservative. The Dutch decided years ago that they would legally ban parties which propagate explicitly fascist and racist ideas, that's the limit. They had a taste of that in 1939-45 and that was enough, they don't want that old shit again. But does this mean fascist and racist ideas don't exist anymore on Holland ? This is obviously not true, it doesn't abolish the need to define your attitude towards them, and that requires that you are able to do that, and how can you do it, if you cannot even talk about it ? If the Chinese government becomes afraid of e.g. a few million christians in China, perhaps because they could become a seeding ground for foreign imperialist interests, what they forget is that you're going to have these "deviants" in China anyhow, whether or not this is legally recognised or not, whether you repress them or not, and all you can really do is set a norm which clearly states the limit of tolerance in view of national interests and the maintenance of national sovereignity, the framework within which all must operate, and you provide good, visible exemplars which show clearly what's desirable for Chinese cultur
Re: Scriptures
In a message dated 12/23/03 4:44:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well functioning economy based on a variety of property forms? That's nonsense. Property forms are congealed products of the social organization of labor. Comment At this juncture of history the idea that an economy can function well based on a variety of forms of property is no longer a theoretical question. If the property form is not the problem then what is? The property form that underlay the current organization of social labor and labor power has perhaps 4 billion people on earth living below the margin and billions absolutely destitute. The great day of reckoning grows closer in People's China. Reproduction for export on the basis of reproduction for the sake of expanded value - maximum profits, drives the cost and price of labor power down as the technological revolution also squeeze more and more human labor out of the production process. And drive the cost of labor power down. The cheapening of the price of labor power and its _expression_ in the price of commodities is best witnessed in the proliferation of the "Dollar Stores" in America and Canada. The unevenness of this process is that the falling price of labor power and commodities is falling at a greater velocity than the wages paid the upper strata of the working class. Good times for the few is horrible times for the multitudes. Melvin P.
Re: Scriptures
We don't need this kind of exchange!! On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 02:27:17AM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > You are boring with your "impulse to expansion". > Well functioning economy based on a variety of property forms? That's nonsense. > > That shows how much you know about it. > > J. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scriptures
What you don't know about it, Juriaan, is that there are significant debates and arguments going on at every level of the CCP about these social changes, and there is a considerable left wing which cannot reconcile the expanding capitalism with the historical allegiance of the party to Marx and collectivized property. This disagreement and opposition isn't a well kept secret; it seems even the Christian Science Monitor has bothered to pay attention to the discussions going on inside the CCP and the country rather than search through texts for quotes. My knowledge of the disagreements comes from US individuals (members of Marxist organizations) invited by representatives of the CCP to analyze the collapse of the USSR and its meaning for China's transformation. dms - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Scriptures You are boring with your "impulse to expansion". Well functioning economy based on a variety of property forms? That's nonsense. That shows how much you know about it. J.
Re: Scriptures
You are boring with your "impulse to expansion". Well functioning economy based on a variety of property forms? That's nonsense. That shows how much you know about it. J.
Re: Scriptures
First, the CSM is not quoting Marx, rather it is making an assertion as to a fundamental of Marx's theory. Of course, Marx offered no such "theory" except his analysis of capital and its immanent critique, i.e. revolution. However, the CSM is a bit closer to the spirit and quality of Marx's work than JB would like, or like us, to believe. Since wealth in the system Marx was analyzing was based on exchange value, and exchange value was the product and producer of the social relation where production was owned, was private, and labor was organized as wage-labor, then it is truly essential that the revolution's state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, eliminate that social relation, that form of property, those private means. And especially in land. A quick look at the recent history of the former USSR, Poland, and former Comecon states should prove just how destructive enshrining private ownership of land is for the general social welfare, the equality of those shared needs-- like food. As is always the case, law follows the economy, and this constitutional change only codifies what has been ongoing in China since 1985 (and before. I would argue that the movement of China more definitively into the world markets was the result of the success, Mao's success, with the cultural revolution.) The rural economy in China, its social organization, has just about been shattered by the ongoing economic transformation; this process started years ago with increases in taxes on collective and communal agricultural production, and the diminuation of social opportunities for education and health care. Unemployment, real unemployment, the unofficial kind, is estimated at 175-200 million people, the overwhelming bulk in the rural areas, which is to be expected since the population is overwhelmingly tied to the land. Whether the Chinese ever stopped trading is not the issue. Since the 1980s China has received 500 billion dollars in foreign direct investment-- this investment precipitates, requires, tremendous upheaval and reorganization of the system of landed property-- ain't no two ways about it-- because, at the same time as capital disemploys millions of workers, it requires access to millions and millions more in its impulse to expansion, whether or not the impulse is fulfilled. The Chinese government has no advantage in this, no more than the government of the former USSR, of Poland, had. Well functioning economy based on a variety of property forms? That's nonsense. Property forms are congealed products of the social organization of labor. Capitalist property, private ownership of land, is the ownership of production-- and production only functions on the basis of wage-labor, or labor forms presented in the market as sharing the in the production of value by wage labor. JB never tires of telling us he's no Marxist. Absolutely. dms
