On May 19, 4:17=A0am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> 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?
I mean the historically unpredented mix of workers state with a
leader****p having continuity back to the Russian Revolution (albeit
with distortions) but pretty deeply integrated with the latest phase
of imperialism. Such a formation is a deformed workers' state sui
generis!
> > But for sure it is a former colonial country that is still =93being
> > planned=94 =96 within the context and courtesy of =96 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 colonial powers demanded and got monopolies of trading rights and
other "privileges" in the coastal cities. They violently enforced
this. That=92s colonialism.
> > The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
> > product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution =96 but product nevertheless
=
=96
> > is still in the saddle =96 and has the task of defending its position.
>
> "Task" in which sense?
In the sense "against the social forces set in train be the
development of a huge market economy with deep international links".
> > This it must do by =93modernisation=94 and by retaining its control of
t=
he
> > 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?
Yes.
> > It=92s 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 =96 a central =93task=94 of its
=93planners=94.=
> 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).
I don't seek a "payback" but the nearest term to describe this new
phenomenon would be "social imperialism": workers state fundamentally
but generating huge and increasing surpluses of capital and requiring
continuity and increasing volume of markets cheap raw materials,
labour and so on.
> > 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 =96 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.
And the Iraqi m*****, etc etc etc?
|
