China disposes of surplus capital

Henry C.K. Liu hliu at mindspring.com
Sun Apr 25 09:18:12 PDT 1999


The surplus capital has already been destroyed. This is merely accounting reckoning. Within the game of market and financial capitalism, all player are bound by the same rules. There is a distinction between China's state-owned banks and the privately owned banks in the West. Chinese state owned banks work for the whole economy, executing the policies of the government on behalf of the whole nation and its people. The Western private banks work for profit for the private share holders, seeking loopholes in government policies, and when necessary against the interest of the people, if not the nation. The fundamental issue is whether in the effort to build socialism in 1999, one has any option to deny the existence the omnipresence of global capitalism which appears to have monopolized all the means of wealth creation. The issue for China is not whether playing with the devil is necessary, but whether playing with the devil makes one a devil. Revolutionaries, by definition, have less power than the reactionary forces, so the curse of a revolutionary's life is always to be forced to play in the opposition's field. It is not where one is, but where one is going that matters. We Chinese are well accustomed to protracted struggles and have a very different perspective of time as compared to Westerners. The modern time revolution has been going on for 70 years and is expected to go for another century, with periodic triumphs and setbacks.

Henry C.K. Liu

Chris Burford wrote:


> >From the Economist from about a week ago
>
> > CHINA began to get to grips with huge debts at its four big state banks
> > by setting up a clean-up firm, Xinda Asset Management, to help one of
> > the banks, China Construction Bank, to dispose of its bad loans. If
> > that works, similar firms will be set up for the other three.
>
> How does this differ from capitalist processes of destroying surplus capital?
>
> A hard question for Henry or anyone else, but any comments?
>
> Chris Burford
>
> London



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list