On 2008-05-20 13:07 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 19, 4:17 am, 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!
I really don't want to get into an argument about the class nature of
China here, so I'll just mention our views on that matter differ (mostly
in their respective firmness).
>>> 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?
>
> 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 “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?
>
> Yes.
Ah, but the Nemesis of China as a workers' state could well turn out to
be its salvation as a state per se.
Remember, "socialism in one country" is NOT an option. Unless you want
to argue that a global socialist revolution is imminent.
Pursuing that line of thought (I'll spare the details for the sake of
conciseness), one comes to the following, IMHO interesting question: did
the SU under Stalin and the post-Stalinist SU further or inhibit the
advance of socialism around the globe?
>>> 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.
>
> And the Iraqi m*****, etc etc etc?
As for the "etc etc etc": we'll see. As for the Iraqi m*****, the role
they have played in recent History was purely a negative (in the
philosophical, not the moral sense), a passive one: their activities
were determined as a negative of the US's actions. IF they manage to
kick the Yank butchers and rapers of nations out, AND IF they manage to
break loose from the entanglement of Saudi, Iranian and Turk (Syrian?)
interests, THEN... well, then they would have achieved a feat of truly
Herculean pro****tions. Yet it would only be the beginning of their
existence as a distinct "player".
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
