>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 05/15/00 04:43PM >>>
I'm no expert on China, so I have to speculate that
in cadre organizations where the loyalty of the
faithful is the glue that holds things together,
and for whom ideology is an important basis for
loyalty, shifts in the party line encourage
confusion and dissension, both of which are
disruptive. Hence the value of remaining
consistent in word, if not in deed.
__________
CB: Wouldn't cadre be less confused etc if the old Leninist attitude of concrete analysis of concrete situation were taken, allowing for the necessity of rapid shifts in response to rapid shifts in the real political and economic situation in the village, city, province , country and world ? You know the practical critical dialectic can change in a flash and change back. I'd think that would be as cadre-like as loyalty and glue. Continuity and discontinuity both.
_________
It is possible for cadres to become inured to radical changes if they occur in subtle degrees over time. Just like the frog who is put in a pot of water which is set over fire and slowly reaches its boiling point.
____________
CB: But you can't suddenly tell them we are going "capitalist" ?
________
You can join an organization with total commitment and not be sensitive to it turning into something you would have heretofore rejected as totally rotten, if the process is highly drawn out over a long period of time.
__________
CB: The great mass of party cadre are still resistant to China aiming to be capitalist and no longer aiming to be partially , temporarily capitalist on a longer road to socialism ?
________
There is no absolute authoritarianism, except in science fiction. Inside any organized group, like a State, must be some basis for allegiance that is supported voluntarily by enough people to keep the infernal thing going.
The simple reality is that if, as was posted by I remember not who, at least half of GDP in the PRC is now produced by non-governmental bodies, the classification of what China is relative to other mixed economies must be reconsidered. Explaining what the Chinese government does or doesn't say about it is secondary.
_________
CB: Was is 100% socialist before ? Was it mixed socialist and "peoples/communal peasant" ? How much was government owned before ?
CB
Max,
Anyway, why do you think leaders of China 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 ? Charles