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