The figures on China were something like 1/3 in private, 1/3 in state owned.
That leaves out 1/3. What gives ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] somebody posted saying over half of GDP was private sector now in the PRC. Only if it was 1950 this would not be remarkable in a country calling itself socialist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember when Samuelson and Galbraith were saying that the U.S. had a mixed
capitalist/socialist economy ? Well, that wasn't necessarily their exact
words, but they did say mixed. Socialism and capitalism were converging.
>>>>>>>>
[mbs] lately socialism is doing all the converging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is your answer to my questions about the definition of demcracy
starting with popular soveriegnty ? That must be answered before we get into
"bourgeois democratic norms" ?
[mbs] I said and still maintain it's an empty formulation. It leaves to the imagination who the people are, and how they may appropriately exert their will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is the locus of these "norms" ( not that they are really followed
normally , fully, in bourgeois countries) in your theory of democracy ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] The locus is individual rights. They are not fully followed, and some of them can be questioned as to legitimacy (i.e., such as those pertaining to property rights), but they are more in evidence in "bourgeois" countries than elsewhere. But this last goes back to my question. If Norway has a bigger state sector than the PRC, what makes the PRC socialist and Norway 'bourgeois'? Could the lack of individual rights now be a plus?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bourgeois "democratic norms" are what , in your question ? Freedom of
enterprise ? Freedom of religion ? Freedom of the bourgeoisie to contest
for state power ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] all of those, roughly and not in the same terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The bourgeoisie should not be allowed to contest for state power in China ,
in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] The problem is that this, once enshrined in law, becomes a license for tyranny. Anyone can be classified as 'bourgeoisie' and subject to oppression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The key to me is that the Chinese Communist Party still claims they are
aiming for socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] So the the British Labour Party, up until relatively recently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fomenting of some capitalism along the way seems to be drawing lessons
from the history of socialism since the Russian Revolution, which is
entirely in barely or non-capitalist countries; and a recognition that
Engels and Marx sometimes called rigid schema of historical stages has some
objective force. That is, there is no road to socialism that completely
bypasses capitalism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] Along the way, my ass. There ain't no way back from it without a new CCP and a new state. This isn't the NEP. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only real holdouts are Cuba, NK, maybe Vietnam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is difficult to make an artificial proletariat that does not go through
some real struggle with a real bourgeoisie. The harsh struggles of
capitalism are something of a necessary preparation for socialism,
especially in a world where the advanced capitalist countries are still
capitalist.
Remember, China is a PEOPLES ,not socialist republic. There is a reason for
that name. CB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Historically yes, prospectively in a different sense.
mbs