So what's the deal in China, Henry

[Henry C.K. Liu]

Paula:

International relations often mixes with national domestic politics to create
Alice in Wonderland logic.
There is a very well entrenched segment of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
which is strongly against the revival of creeping capitalism in the name of
reform.

Their position  is based on two arguments:

1) Reform as its has been actually practiced has not created more wealth than
socialism would have, it only created a new mal-distribution of wealth that
appears as new wealth by capitalistic accounting., because that accounting
system measures surpluses and assets but usually not externality damages and
human sufferings, such as loss of  universal public health and education
regimes, social disharmony and environmental damage etc.  There is also
substantial foreign debt, roughly equal to China's foreign reserves.  As rich as
the American economy is, the American capitalist system required two world wars
to make minimum progress in the these areas of common good.  In education, it
had to be named the Defense Education Act in order for Congress to pass aid to
higher education during the Cold War.
If China were to spend its entire cumulative trade surplus of US$150 billion
over the last 2 decade, it cannot restore the damaged environment to pre trade
levels. So the foreign trade regime is actually a loss in social accounting.
The cut in rural public education pays for the empty high rise office towers in
Shanghai.  This is why the poistion held by liberal economists like Delong, that
dirtyand unhumane  development is better than no development is both wrong and
immoral. These are only false alternatives.  There is a third way.  Delong and
his type are saying: either gamble with our rules or starve.  There is a less
evil and rsiky way, but for this third way to work, first we must make gambling
illegal.  The same with capitalism.

2) The second aruement: Reform fails to delivery even the narrowly stated
objectives of foreign trade and privatization, which was to make China strong in
the world community of nations.  It is increasingly clear that foreign trade
reduces China again to a semi colonial status, supplying cheap labor and
accepting environment abuse to produce cheap and dirty products and material
processing for the well developed economies which are exporting the social and
environmental costs of finance capitalism to China.  Instead of closing the
developmental gap between China and the rich nations, the gap in fact got bigger
and became more structural.  Thus instead of building up the national security
of China, reform actually weakens it.  Furthermore, US trade policies is a
program to control Chinese domestic markets by unfair competition on the part of
well capitalized multinational and transnational corporation whose culture is
inherently anti socialist.  Thus, allowing these institution to run free in
China would mislead the population to conclude that capitalism is a naturally
superior system, instead of recognizing it as merely a system that fares well
within rules that the system itself set up to favor it.

Now, the so-called human rights types and democracy lovers naively (or
deviously) promote these motherhood values in China, unwittingly (or knowingly)
ignoring that the real aim is to subvert Chinese resistance to Western
domination.  These self-righteous people and institutions never uttered any
protest when Warren put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, when blacks
were and still are lawlessly persecuted nationwide not just by the lawless but
by the law itself, when the Smith Act (outlawing the Communist Party) was law of
the land, when the loyalty oath was required to hold a teaching job anywhere in
America, when government institutions are routinely used to harrass the
political opposition, when robbing a bank gets one 15 years of hard labor, but
Boesky and  Milken got soft country club detentions and became heroes after
serving only token time, totally divorsing the concept of justice from the rule
of law.  Only in America can one steal billions from state pension funds (from
you and me), pay the "penalty" and have hundred of million left to play good guy
as a rightwing Robin Hood.
The pathetic part is that even the international left is falling for this
right-wing campaign of disinformation on China, the only leftist power standing.

China is by no means perfect, but certainly not for the reasons claimed by
Heritage Foundation or Freedom House, or Amnesty International.  The Whites are
well organized against a Red China, just like they did against a Red Russia in
1919, except this time the Whites, both racial and ideological, are using
disinformation and trade coupled with "human rights" as troops.
The struggle for the correct way is not new in the Chinese revolution.  It has
gone on continuously for 5 decades.  The Whites are trying to use these debates
as  proof that socialism does not work.  It proves exactly the opposite, that
the search for relevant socialist solutions according the facts is alive and
well in China.
Some opportunistic or misguided dissidents inside China fall for this trick and
are made heroes (with material rewards and media attention) by the scheming
Whites.

The CCP is try to find a way to bring the country into the modern age without
having to allow China to be subjugated again to Western domination, or to allow
the poor and powerless be exploited by an new unprincipled minority comprador
class in the name of national revival.  Almost a century of revolutionary
struggle brought China to this stage, with millions sacrificing their lives for
a remote vision.  We are not going to to give that all up for a few Yankee
dollars facing imminent devaluation.  China is not the Philippines. So American
imperialists might as well face reality.

Still, the problem is very complex and difficult.  It is made more difficult
because the speed of change has been accelerated by technology, but the speed of
the political process has not advanced.
In America, the problem of the minority and the minority community development
face similar dilemmas.


Happy New Year and keep vigilant,

Henry


pms wrote:

> >ut a vocal and =
> >
> >influential group _ say the reforms will undermine communist control =
> >
> >and spark a social backlash as millions of workers lose their =
> >
> >cradle-to-grave security.
> >
>
> This very interesting post reminded me of a question I asked Henry.  Maybe
> I missed the answer.
>
> While discussing health care I asked if the Chinese had at one time, before
> capitalist reform, had decent HC.  Wouldn't this be part of cradle-to-grave
> security?
>
> And if it is true that at one time the Chinese people had come to expect
> access to decent HC, then I would like to know what form it took and what
> was the reaction of the people upon losing this precious resource.  Surely
> a lot more folks would become demonstratably excited about losing HC than
> would bother about democratic reform.
>
> Was there any opposition to HC changes, and if so, why do we not here of
> it?  If there was no such action-why not?  I find it hard to believe that
> the great mass of people would let such a thing go, quietly.
>
> Thanks to your consideration, Henry.
>
> Hey Henry, what the mood of the Big Cigars you know.  Are they freakin' out?
>
> smooches
> Paula