[Marxism] Re: Re: [ Marxism] Inflation Delivers a Blow to Vietnamâ?Ts Spirits

[Marvin Gandall]

Louis writes:

> Marvin:
>>I don't know. Would you describe the NEP and similar openings to private
>>and
>>foreign capital by states where the bourgeoisie was expropriated as
>>contributing to the advance of socialism - and, by extension, to
>>"socialist
>>relations".
>
> The NEP was necessary, but it is wrong to speak of it advancing
> socialism. It was a retreat dictated by a disastrous civil war. The
> Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the NEP were both designed to give the
> USSR breathing space--that's all.

My thinking also. But it was still viewed as a tactical retreat necessary
for the further advance of the USSR and the European masses towards
socialism. The breathing soace afforded by the NEP wasn't seen as in
contradiction to that goal.

>>Incidentally, I'm no fan of the WTO, but it has been favoured by the
>>poorer countries, for all its defects, as affording more protection
>>than the tyranny of bilateral agreements imposed on them singly by
>>stronger rich countries.
>
> I don't think "countries" is a very useful unit of analysis for Marxists.

I'm not clear as to your meaning. That international relations is not
relevant? Or that there is a different economic impact on the different
classes within "countries"? There always is. Unfortunately, we have much
less empirical evidence of how the Chinese masses view the FDI or the WTO,
or to what degree they attribute their various discontents to China's more
open economy. What evidence there is suggests that most support the overalll
direction in which the CCP and the aspiring Chinese bourgeoisie are taking
the country, which doesn't preclude protest over specific local grievances.
There is at present no mass political organization in China calling for
withdrawal from the WTO or a ban on foreign investment, which would reliably
allow us to make the kind of distinctions you seem to be suggesting.