On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, nada wrote:
> First of all, the Russians arctually *deindustrialized* sections of
> Eastern Europe during the aftermath of the war but before the
> "People's Democracies" were set up. Then they started to industrialize
> those countries as *part of Comecon* where the process developed where
> 4 of the Comecon countries had *higher* standard of living than the
> average Russian did. Totally not imperialist from the point of view of
> political economy.
Very true. But as I pointed out before, during the brief window of
"Allied" cooperation after WWII, you actually did have at least
diplomatic discussion over Soviet pseudo-imperialism in the Third
World, with the Stalinists getting the Dardanelles from Turkey, and
imitating their imperialist allies in Iran and Libya. But Truman and
Churchill were, it quickly turned out, not about to allow any such
thing, and the USSR quickly pulled out of Iran and lost the Soviet oil
concessions.
Interestingly, this is something there was actually top-level Soviet
disagreement over. Mikoyan, at that point the Soviet finance minister,
was identified with this policy, which Stalin was not really very
happy with, though he was willing to go along with it until
Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946.
In the last months of Stalin's life, Stalin believed that some of his
top cronys, notably Molotov and Mikoyan, had a too conciliatory policy
to the West, and he was thinking of purging them.
Molotov nonetheless was a loyal Stalinist to his death in the 1980s.
Mikoyan was definitely not, he sup****ted Gorbachev in his last years,
and in the fifties under Khrushchev, he was the one responsible for
starting the quite false rumors that Stalin was behind the
assassination of Kirov, which Khrushchev never publicly formally
endorsed, but found useful to have spread. Strong hints in that
direction in his famous 1956 "Secret Speech."
>
> Secondly, these were no finance-capital investments and it's finance
> capital that is the height of imperialist, less we forget. There was
> no finance capital in Russia.
>
> Thirdly, Chinese investments are done like *capitalist* ones often
> with...finance capital leading the way out of the privatized and semi-
> state/private banks from s. China. Chinese companies, unlike Russian
> projects when Russia was still socialist, are run like capitalist
> ones. That African workers are paid less for these Chinese projects
> *exactly* like Imperialist investments should come as no surprise.
Bnking is one sector in China that is just about fully state, with
little private. Or so is my impression, if you have info to the
contrary, Dave, by all means let's hear it. So Chinese private finance
capital is under firm state control, to the extent it exists. Most
Chinese capital is industrial capital, as that is the sector whose
growth is economically useful to China, unlike finance or even
merchant capital.
To the degree that you see investment in Africa by *Chinese* private
capital, this is indeed Chinese capitalist imperialism. However the
*control* is clearly by the Chinese state not by such private
capitalists. Creating a unique and probably unprecedented situation,
how it works out would be interesting theoretically--though not
necessarily pleasant for those on the receiving end.
One remembers the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
At a guess, insofar as the Chinese are on good terms with the
Americans, they would tend to imitate Western imperialism in Africa,
though perhaps with Chinese state intervention occasionally to smooth
out the worst rough edges and prevent China getting too bad a name in
the Third World. Being leader of the Third World is still a vital
aspect of Chinese policy. This was the course followed by the Chinese
diplomat on his tour of East Africa that was discussed here on apst a
few months ago.
But as hostility between China and the USA mounts, as the Chinese
state is *not* ultimately beholden to the Chinese capitalists,
mobilizing Africa on China's side could override the interests of
Chinese private capital, and the state might well compel the
capitalists to measures beneficial to Africa, even if they seriously
interfere with profit.
-jh-
> > But here is the doosey we all expect from Vn:
> "The Chinese will deal with Africa a lot more fairly than the Euro-
> Americans."
>
> Not! How about the SAME. Chinese are *notorious* for being as bad or
> worse...as one might expect from an up and coming national-capitalist
> country.
>
> Then:
> "David assumes that Russian investment to for instance Bulgaria after
> WW2 was also ...imperialist."
>
> Dispenses with above.
>
> "Hence he is against it."
>
> Not then since itwasn't capitalist investment as explained above. But
> I'm all for Bulgaria *nationalizing* Russian assets NOW. How about
> you?
>
> "The use of Chinese labour in Africa where africans could be used is
> reprehensible... "
>
> Reprehensible? OK. Stupid, maybe. I actually heard about this but
> don't know it's impact or how big it is. Any info on this would be
> appreciated. In many cases, I know, Chinese are paid LESS than some
> African workers. But again, this is only hearsay.
>
|
