>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 05/12/00 02:57PM >>>
CB: Was the SU a socialist country at the time of the NEP ?
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.
_______
CB: I must have read a different one, or misinterpreted the figures.
Don't they call themselves a peoples' , not yet socialist ?
Anyway, why do you think they deny or won't admit that they are going capitalist and not socialist ? Since the Communist Party is all powerful, and rules with an authoritarian,non-democratic way, why don't they just force everybody to accept that China is capitalist or going capitalist ? Who is it they have to worry about preventing them from going capitalist if they openly say they are going capitalist ? Is it that they don't know they are going capitalist ?
________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
___________
CB: Agree. I was just thinking about what constitutes being capitalist. No doubt China is getting more of it these days, but what is the qualitative shift from whatever China is now ( socialist republic ? peoples' republic) to capitalist ? Is it a mixed economy now ?
By the way, when the liberal economic lingo was convergence, capitalism had been doing all the converging for decades. So, things change. They always change, in case someone thought the current events mean permanent capitalism.
________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
________
CB: Whereas the full formulation of democracy for you is .....?
__________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
_________
CB: You are saying that individual rights is a full formulation of democracy and popular sovereignty is empty ? Is voting an individual right ? How about freedom from racism ? Are you saying that the right to a union is an individual right ?
_________
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.
________
CB: A coverup of suppression of individual rights in bourgeois countries done by not noting that private corporations are as powerful and influential as government over individuals's lives, and that they violate wholesale bourgeois principles of democratic individual rights.
So, you admit that popular sovereignty is not in evidence in bourgeois and "bourgeois" countries ?
What's the difference between "bourgeois" and bourgeois ? Are you saying the U.S has a mixed economy and is not bourgeois , without quotes ? Also, aren't private property rights in the basic means of production not only illegitimate, but underminers of all the individual rights and popular sovereignty ?
_________
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?
_________
CB: The greatest number of individual rights is among the greatest number of people. So, popular soveriengty is the most important way the individual rights are fulfilled.
When you focus on individual rights over group power, you help the ruling class divide and keep us conquered.
China is a Peoples' Republic, so your question should be what makes China a people's republic ? Then you would have to define what you think a peoples' republic is.
The lack of a bourgeois conception of democracy , not placing individual rights as the starting point but rather popular or peoples' sovereignty and masses' material wellbeing as the first principle of democracy would be the big plus in China now.
_________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
CB: I would say the Chinese peoples' democracy should allow mainly the first in a limited way ( that's the big challenge now. limiting it). Freedom of religion should be much more limited than in the U.S. Freedom of the bourgeoisie to contest for state power should be STRICTLY and forcefully prohibited. It is the essence of anti-democracy and anti-freedom on earth 2000.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
______
CB: But better that than have some actual bourgeoisie ascend to state power. Key thing is that actual bourgeoisie get classified as "bourgeoisie".
However, it need not be abused. Everything you would propose as the form of government could be abused as easily.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
_____
CB: So, the Cuban Party , up until now .
The Chinese Communist Party seems a lot different from the British Labour Party, which was never a communist party.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
__________
CB: Your what ? Are you saying China will never become socialist ? Ever ?
Capitalist bourgeoisdom is the permanent state of earthly politics from now until forever ?
_________
There ain't no way back from it without a new CCP and a new state.
________
CB: Is that so ? Having a vision ?
_______
This isn't the NEP. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only real holdouts are Cuba, NK, maybe Vietnam.
_______
CB: You are sure of this ? You know all about how socialism works ? How things must be done ?
__________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
___________
CB: Well, mainly the country did not have a relativelyl arge proletariat at the time of revolution. But how could it develop a real proletariat since ? Especially a proletariat that knows the wiliest ways at the point of production and beyond of the bourgeoisie who surround the Chinese people in the world today ? How would that be taught to the 10's of millions abstractly, just by classroom talk ?
Cheerio