Max Sawicky wrote:
> If you compare China to India, as others have done
> in the past, you can start a good argument over models
> of development. But in the case of the Asian tigers
> there is no economic argument, nor any in terms of
> democratic advantages to the PRC.
With the arrival of neo-liberal globalization, Asia has become a shrinking economic forest, where there are more tigers than food supply and the food chain is getting shorter daily. Analysts the world over are concluding that China is in better shape economically than the rest of Asia precisely because it refused to participate fully in market capitalism. Several "tigers" are beginning to adopt aspects of Chinese economic policy to insure their own survival.
As they say in campaign time in the world's greatest democracy: Is the economy. stupid! Not your so-called "democratic advantage."
>
> Hence, without awarding any blue ribbons to
> capitalism, the jingoism on behalf of USSR/PRC is largely
> a fetishism of state ownership of capital, not very
> good Marxism from my vantage point. Marginally more equal
> income distributions in the formerly socialist countries
> were offset by higher absolute incomes for many workers
> in capitalist countries.
That is pure Cato Institute fixation. Although even Cato is against the Yugo War.
>
> The socialist cause rests mostly on what is to come,
> not on what has already transpired.
>
> mbs
What has transpired did not match your description. And the past is a basis of what is to come. Your facts are wrong if you maintain: Capitalism is technically more efficient or more effective in creating wealth. It does not. It is only effective within the game defined by capitalism itself to externalize all the inefficiencies. Or if you maintain: Capitalism is made tolerable by Western democratic institutions. China is a perfect example of crimes against humanity. China is state capitalism.
Henry C.K. Liu