On 2008-05-18 14:44 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 18, 9:51 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
>> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
>
>> DF.
>
> China is a chimera.
How so? To you mean simply their transition from a Maoist/Stalinist
state to a capitalist one?
> But for sure it is a former colonial country that is still “being
> planned” – within the context and courtesy of – the agenda of
> globalising imperialism.
I'd tend to disagree with the term "colony". Surely, it wasn't a colony
like f.i. India was. The Westeners never ruled China themselves. Or did
they? Didn't they rely on compradores, exploiting the weakness of
Chinese central power -- but never being able to dispose of that central
power? If I'm correct, that would rather qualify it as a vassal, rather
than a colony.
> The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
> product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – but product nevertheless –
> is still in the saddle – and has the task of defending its position.
"Task" in which sense?
> This it must do by “modernisation” and by retaining its control of the
> state apparatus, which it does do with considerable vigour. The rights
> of minority nationalities and of the working class and peasantry are
> collateral damage in this pincer-like situation.
>
> The fundamental contradiction is that in the process it has/is
> creating a massive middle class who threaten to be its nemesis.
Nemesis with respects to it as a workers' state, but not as a state per
se, isn't it?
> It’s a giant that has much of the same dynamic as any vigorous
> imperialism. Control of cheap raw materials, ex****t of surplus capital
> to ensure market returns – a central “task” of its “planners”.
I should argue against the term "imperialism" here. Surely, it's not the
same imperialism as e.g. the English (or generally: European) or
Japanese one. The one thing about China is that it's HUGE. Neither does
it need "Lebensraum", nor, I'd venture, many foreign raw materials, nor
foreign markets for its survival. I would be akin to the US in those
respects. I think such a type of "imperialism" would need to be given a
different name, because it's not the same thing. The US didn't need to
destroy and then invade Iraq to get its oil (unless they gambled on the
global market, on capitalism itself to be destroyed). Classical
imperialism had to occupy, rule or colonize areas mainly because no
capitalist structures existed in those areas (and partly due to
competition with other imperialist powers).
> In the meantime it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, and threatens to
> be the third major bulwark to the expansionist plans of USA
> imperialism – particularly against their next target, Iran. The other
> two being the peoples of the Third and Other worlds and the new
> Russia.
Well, I'm afraid the people of the "Third and Other worlds" weigh very
little, even when compared to Russia, and will continue to weigh as
little until they have sovereign nations to leverage their power.
As for Russia -- as I said in my reply to David, it seems to me that the
tone the US ideologues use when speaking of it is slightly different
than that used when it comes to China. Could be due to my attention, of
course, but I've never heard a US ideologue speak of Russia as an
/economic/ threat.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
