On Apr 20, 3:23 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 10:01 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wchin...
>
> > China's last Maoists submit to capitalism
>
> > By Richard Spencer in Beijing
> > Last Updated: 3:26am BST 19/04/2008
>
> > According to one re****t, the bank had been instructed to sup****t
> > Nanjie at all costs by a conservative in the Communist Party
> > leader****p after the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests in
> > 1989.
>
> That "conservatives" (i.e. orthodox Stalinists) can continue to exert
> this kind of influence sup****ts a workers state theory of present-day
> China. What reason would a reigning bourgeoisie have to allow an old-
> line Stalinist such actual influence?
>
> srd
You have no idea how centrifugal it is. Look, there is an official
"Chen Duxie Study Group" at the University of Beijing. Go figure? But
there are huge currents inside the still existing Stalinist
bureaucracy that for a variety of reasons poke at the direcing the
Chinese communist party.
When the CPC voted to allow millionaires to join the Party (really,
they, did) there *was* some opposition. It didn't last long, of
course. But there are wings of Stalinism that still see the
increasingly irrelevant bureaucracy as their bank, the source of their
privileges etc. The kind of 'out bureaucrats' bypassed by many of the
top Stalinists using their positions to get rich.
I saw one interview the nuvo rich were in some parts of China
scrambling to get INTO the CPC for the rewards it offered.
David
|
