[Marxism] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5BMarxism=5D Inflation_Delivers_a_Blow_to_Vietn?= amâ?Ts Spirits

[S. Artesian]

Marvin,

Quite clearly, the NEP was a retreat, a step back, brought upon by the civil 
war.  The Bolsheviks in their debates were clear about that.  The Bolsheviks 
knew the risks.  The Bolsheviks regarded it as no more than a temporary 
measure.  Compare all that to the 28 years of Chinese development, the 
enshrinement of private property, the dismantling of guaranteed employment; 
guaranteed health care; the propaganda that egalitarianism is unhelpful to 
labor productivity, the propaganda that makes Bukharin's "Enrich 
Yourselves!" look like a slogan of the Left Social Revolutionaries.

And just as clearly, the Bolsheviks were not, at that point, prepared to 
sacrifice their support for international revolution in order to ensure 
their admission to the Manson family of nations.  We certainly cannot say 
the same for China.

And perhaps more to the point, --the NEP was hardly centered on FDI, but on 
restoring agricultural production and relations between city and 
countryside.  At every step, the Bolsheviks were supposed to maintain 
control, not just of the commanding heights, but at the ground level as to 
how room was going to be given to market expansion.  But again, this did not 
involve huge investments from the foreign capitalists.

And even more to the point-- no the NEP did not enhance socialist relations 
of production.  Simply did not.  It facilitated the restoration, in the most 
part, of a level of agricultural production, on a basis that was decidedly 
not socialist, as it could not be.  At a certain point, around 1927,1928, it 
was clear that the NEP could not support itself, could not be supported by, 
and could not support the industrial economy which need more resources, 
human and technical, than could be supplied by an NEP program.

So no, the NEP definitely does not qualify.

Regarding bi-lateral agreements that absolve China of responsibility- that's 
not what was posed or proposed. First, all those things you think China must 
do, and must do in the WTO to ensure its position, it did before it ever 
joined the WTO in 2001.

The question is does China need the WTO?  The answer depends on how, where, 
when, and why you see China's development of its social relations of 
production.  Capitalist?  Then absolutely, WTO.

Noone has ever suggested China could strike trade agreements with every 
country without making concessions; without some guarantees of the 
repatriation of profits, etc. etc.  All those things however can take place 
outside the WTO (and we will see more and more of that).

Moreover, if the BRIC is so vital, so powerful, challenging the advanced 
countries for power; if south-south trade will displace east-west; if 
Mercosur is such a step forward for Brazil, Argentina; if Vietnam is 
emerging as another powerhouse; then clearly breaking away from the advanced 
countries trade organization shouldn't be so difficult.

As  I said at the beginning of this discussion, given the absence of 
revoluton in advanced countries, FDI penetration of China, Vietnam, was/is 
inevitable. And the impact of the FDI on the social relations of production, 
on developing a  bourgeois class was/is inevitable.  The problem is that 
those busy cheerleading every percent of growth of China's exports, every 
new report of the ICBC, and the CCB, record profits, remain blind to the 
changes in class relations.

I'd like to take issue with your linking China's "socialism with Chinese 
characteristics" with "welfare-state social democratic capitalism," since it 
precisely the welfare-state characteristics that China is dismantling.

I'm afraid you don't get to turn the question back on me, and not simply 
because I/we on this side of the debate don't berate China, don't berate 
Cuba, don't smear others by saying that they would rather see China rich 
rather than socialist.  You can't turn the question back on me, because it 
is not an ideological question, with a pro or con side.  It is a question of 
analysis.  Is there an alternative to capitalist development?

Certainly there is.  And it depends on revolution in the advanced countries. 
It doesn't exist yet?  Absolutely, thus the restoration of capitalism in 
Russia, the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the conversion of China.  But 
as Russia, China, Vietnam prove, there is no alternative.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:24 PM
Subject: [Marxism] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5BMarxism=5D 
Inflation_Delivers_a_Blow_to_Vietn?= amâ?Ts Spirits


>