Interesting points, all, and Scylla and Charbydis captures the general situation. A friend tells me that Anita Chan has a new book out, called Chinese Workers Under Assault. Thing is, the regime has used the same argument in re the "Russia road" to de-legitimate unrest or protest-- specifically to legitimate (again and again) the crackdown on Tiananmen89 as well as more generally (preserving stability is good for everybody). Another twist of the knife. They know perfectly well what they do.....
Can't say I share your sentiments in re the AFL-CIO and international solidarity, though there is no disputing the tragedy of Polish Solidarity and the fact that that could be reproduced elsewhere. I guess I am wondering, in this thought experiment, how much blame you would lay at the door of the AFL, of Sweeney, Jr. and of said intellectuals. Isnt that something of a sideshow in the development of underdevelopment in the PRC. One might also think of other possible scenarios of the dissolution or a "velvet revolution", none of which would of course fit, but Taiwan and the Koreas come to mind first, as does India. But anyway the only thing clear to me is that the "stratfor" and The Economist (or sinological) type of think-tanking is a joke-- imminent collapse, the splitting into many republics/regions, the wholesale sham of the state's legitimacy. etc The chattering classes have been saying this (desiring this) shit more or less constantly since 49. But of course I speak as someone who does not desire the end of the P.R.C.
PS to Charles: You noted that: I will say that there is not the same kind of evidence that the Brazilian or current Indian government is seeking to build socialism in the long term with current policies for survival, as with China. The Chinese Communist Party basically comes right out and says that the current policies are necessary evils to survive short term, but the long term goal is still socialism. CB
And I am just wondering what your "evidence" is here, above. There really isnt any. . If I remember correctly, *official* figures have unemployment at upwards of 30 million, and these would leave out all kinds of ppl either not reporting or "unofficially, temporarily unemployed", and then, on the other hand, you have the deracinated and drifting population of now-landless rural laborers-- at least double this figure of 30. WTO will not be good for what used to be called the lower and middle peasants, or for agriculture itself, which will now get to "freely" compete with US agribusiness.
At any rate, the CCP indeed says they are building socialism with capitalism (well actually, seems to me this is said less and less frequently, c.f. last year's NPC and Constitutional proceedings which enshrine private property). (If youre new to this area you might begin with Wm Hinton's Shenfan and Great Reversal-- not definitive and not beyond critique of course, but imho his work (over 50 yrs worth) would be hard to over-rate.) But Bush said he was building a kinder, gentler nation here, so why do you believe the former to some extent and not the latter. I ask skeptically but sincerely. I would say that if the first ten or so years was building capitalism with socialism, I have no words for the 90s, and the aftermath of Deng's Southern Tour in 92 (but it is sickening). If Steve P and Jonathan L are around it would be great to hear from them about all these questions...
PPS to Daniel (and to David and others): many thanks for your responses
Best, -Dan
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------