Thoughts about China
Posted by softrockcookie
Considering the discussion inside the IMT the last week in an international gathering of Marxists, I had to point out some things obvious to me. I won’t give any references here to the internal discussion documents, because they are not for public discussion while they’re not the official organisational position.
In the discussion, there are two main positions:
- The document put forward by the IS that states that China is already capitalist and restauration has succeeded.
- The oppositional document that states that China remains a deformed workers’ state.
Both documents, while having their good sides, have major errors and make wrong considerations. Let’s see why.
About the economy of China
In my believe, I consider the paper of the IS very good and it shows that not majorly facts and figures about the Chinese economy can be the main basis for this discussion, as we don’t have any credible sources. Whom are you going to believe? The Chinese department for statistics? The Chinese press? Or maybe the foreign press? There are many different facts and figures about the Chinese economy, and we can only estimate what is true. As for the opposition, to claim that the private sectors of the Chinese economy help to strengthen the state-owned sector and that the Chinese have somehow perfected the socialist accumulation with this is quite speculative and very possibly nonsense. That nowadays more Chinese have a relatively good quality of life is also due to the proletarisation of the farmers, and does not mean that they improved the life of the masses by pure political means – the opposite is the case: there is no social security networks or working rights like they existed in the Soviet Union. Fred Weston correctly stated in his final speech that the poor are getting poorer and the rich get richer, like they do in capitalist countries. In a recent discussion with a girl from China via MSN Messenger she stated that the contradiction between rich and poor is for her the main economic issue. I also think that the state sector could grow “with the help of” the private sector. However, important regional and national strata of the government pull in the direction of privatisation of many main industries and enterprises, but oftenly fail because the workers there would strike and cut off the officials’ heads.
About the politics of China
Directly, but contradictionally linked to the question of the Chinese economy is logically the question of the Chinese politics and society. While stating very good why China can be considered capitalist, the IS document makes a major error in one of its demands. It demands that the Chinese workers should be helped in bringing down the Communist party! This is quite outrageous! Never in the history of our tendency we held the position to destroy the Communist party. Not in the USSR or Eastern Europe then, not in Cuba nowadays and not in any other country where there existed or exists a Communist party which did never claim power. Why do they say this? Because they wrongly claim that the Communist party is just a prelonged arm of the state apparatus! How can they claim this? What is a party? A party is an agglomeration of people with somewhat the same interests. Today in China there are also many (if not all) capitalists within the party (which the opposition paper denies, but in Austria we also have many capitalists inside the social-democratic party). It’s now more of a “people’s party” or a nationalist (very nationalist!) party indeed. There are careerists and bureaucrates within the Chinese Communist party like they exist in every party around the world (because there is no Marxist democratic centralist mass party). There are not just people from the government and officials in there, but also normal workers and other strata of society. Even if there are no clear figures about the membership of the party, official figures state there are 76 million people inside the party now, which makes it the biggest party in the world. Official figures state that the bureaucracy are “only” 26 million people. Most of the party members see themselves as Maoists, as most of the Chinese still love their former “Great Chairman”. Many simple workers hate the bureaucracy of the party (while at the same time being a party member) for having disbanded “Maoism” or “Marxism”. But what’s the problem? We have the same here with social-democratic and Communist parties. Has the international the approach as to destroy the parties by any means and at any cost? Definately not! It is an outrageous sectarian left-radical approach towards the Chinese Communist party, which nobody can ever understand. The IS states in their answer to the opposition document that all contacts we have made say that we are far too kind to the party and government bureaucracy. Yes, and we shouldn’t be! But that’s not the reason why we shouldn’t try to win over people from inside the Communist party as well for our position. We do so in every (capitalist) country, so why not in China? In China everything can be discussed openly. Over 300 million Chinese can be contacted over the internet, email, instant messenging and so on. You will not be brought to jail for criticising the government. Most of the death sentences are spoken out against corrupt people and criminals, but not because of another opinion. To go inside the Communist party makes the point even easier, for as a party member you can’t be put into jail. To become a member you just have to have the will for it, be Chinese, and have a two month lasting “political education” and evaluation by the party. If we meet left-redical Chinese young people who don’t want to enter the party because of its bureaucracy then we also shouldn’t work inside the Austrian socialdemocracy…! It is another thing if one points to foreign journalism and websites. Foreign journalists are not really treated that good in China because they started to spread lies about China in the Western media. Eventually, every government can block and filter homepages if they consider the content to be offending or inappropriate, which is – concerning China – very often the case. But that has nothing to do with the possibility of relatively freedom of speech (like in any other country), especially for Marxist positions.
My conclusions
In short, my standpoint is explained that way: I think that China is capitalist and therefore a social revolution and not just a political revolution is needed. This can also be done by reformation of the Chinese Communist party, in which democratic discussion is permitted, on basis of a Marxist programme. (By the way, how else could it be that a national party meeting lasts for weeks if everything is already decided anyway?) Many important enterprises can be “democraticised” because they are state-owned. Others can be nationalised under workers’ control? Have we not demanded this also in capitalist countries that there should be a peaceful revolution through parlament? Yes, sir! It is much easier for us to win party members because already most of the Chinese people consider themselves Maoists/Marxists (whatever that could mean). That’s a perfect situation for poltical work in China.