Chinese “Communist” Party introducing greater protection for private capital
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Global Times headline:
China adopts first law promoting private sector, underscoring ‘nation’s commitment to safeguarding rights of private businesses’
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202504/1333190.shtmlIt’s a fairly short article that tells us that:
“The law aims to further improve the environment for the development of the private sector and ensure fair market competition for all types of economic entities”.That’s not really an accurate headline by the Global Times. China has been promoting the private sector since at least the economic liberalization policies of the Deng era. Incidentally, it’s sort of funny how the Trump administration and other people on the right around the world continue referring to China, almost instinctively, as “red China” and “communist China.” If you want to see how “red” China is (not), a good documentary is China Blue, which shows how the industrial/textile sector is heavily dependent on the exploitation of people from the countryside.
That article from Global Times does not express the real historical situation. The so-called privatization in China is an ancient process. ( In this journal, some of whose members were Maoists ), has written several articles about the privatization in China, which they call neoliberalism.
The privatization is part of the so-called Four Modernizations, initiated after the elimination of the so-called Gang of Four, Some Maoists call it a party coup done by Deng Xiaoping
https://www.communistvoice.org/19cChinaHinton.html
https://www.communistvoice.org/17cChina.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Modernizations
The RCPUSA, which is a Maoist organization, has already written about the long process of Chinese privatization
Adri/Citizen, Thanks for the info you posted, but please be aware that I didn’t post the GT article for any historical or theoretical acuity – I put it there because GT a CCP mouthpiece – so the article should be useful in countering the nonsense usually spouted about ‘socialist’ China
Doesn’t one of the stars on the flag of the Chinese state represent the “national bourgeoisie”?
———————————————–
It does, and the four stars represent the four Chinese social classes, including the so-called petty bourgeoisie. The CPC allied with the bourgeoisie class
The Chinese Revolution was a peasant revolution that led to the establishment of a capitalist society, similar to the Bolshevik coup and the French bourgeois revolution, with the only difference that feudalism did not exist in China. It was what Marx called the Asiatic mode of production
In Cuba, one sector of the bourgeoisie class also supported the guerrillas, and it was also a bourgeois nationalist revolution, similar to the rest of the nationalist revolutions that have taken place in Latin America
Lenin supported the theory of the permanent revolution because it applies to economically backward societies.
We have an article that says that Bolshevism is a combination of Kautsky’s theory of the vanguard party and Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution
———————————————————————–
ste finch
Participant
Adri/Citizen, Thanks for the info you posted, but please be aware that I didn’t post the GT article for any historical or theoretical acuity – I put it there because GT is a CCP mouthpiece – so the article should be useful in countering the nonsense usually spouted about ‘socialist’ China
—————————————————
We know it was your intention; we all do that around here. I am always publishing articles from different sourcesI read that there was more nationalisation under the KMT than there was under Mao.
Many among the national bourgeoisie, very weak in the 1930s, increasingly preferred the Red areas, if they could reach them, and moved to the Japanese areas if not, rather than stay in the KMT, the same study said. I don’t know if it was true.
It was the foreign bourgeoisie that preferred Chiang, although he personally despised them. They had initially feared him as “The Red General.”
It is logical, in that the national bourgeoisie was in a class war with the gentry, most of whom had decided to run with the Right KMT after the April coup of 1927 ousted the “Communists” from the KMT.
For the “Communists” the ‘nation’ came first against everyone. The Reds were far more nationalist than the “Nationalists” were. This attracted the home-grown bourgeoisie.
The process of nationalization was started in England by the Manchesterists, and then it was copied by other nationalist classes, but the KMT was able to initiate a longer and wider process of nationalization because they had more economic control than the Maoists.
Nationalization is a capitalist process; it is not a socialist process, as the left-wingers have always propagated, in the same manner that national liberation is a capitalist process, the liberated ones are the national bourgeoisie, and the best example is the Viet Cong.
There was a long process of struggles between the so-called Chinese “communists” and among the Maoists for power and economic control. Like in China, Maoism became a student movement
The works of Mao Zedong ( Mao Tse Tung ) do not describe deeply the process of the Chinese society; and Mao did not have any deep knowledge and understanding about Marxism and socialism, his followers created the so-called Mao Tse Tung thought.
The real facts have been written by outside sources, including Enver Hoxha, who said that Maoism was modern Confucianism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm
—————————————————————–
Many among the national bourgeoisie, very weak in the 1930s, increasingly preferred the Red areas, if they could reach them, and moved to the Japanese areas if not, rather than stay in the KMT, the same study said. I don’t know if it was true.
It was the foreign bourgeoisie that preferred Chiang, although he personally despised them. They had initially feared him as “The Red General.”
————————————————–
The main ally of Chiang was the US capitalist class, who called them imperialist, and he declared himself an anti-imperialist like the Japanese and Italian capitalist class it does shows that anti-imperialism can be used by the right-wingers and the left-wingers. Chiang retreated to Taiwan with the main purpose of taking over the mainland China territory. The whole process is a history of rivalry among capitalists
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.