Economic reform in China
- This topic has 57 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Again, from what I can tell from Citizenofthenewworld’s post, the answer to my question is ‘yes’, that the successful Chinese economic reforms will continue.
You both seem to want to answer a question that I’m not asking.
As for Marx’s views, we’ve had years of debating those, and youse still erroneously regard Marx as a passive 18th century ‘materialist’, no matter what evidence is produced to show that Marx argued for ‘theory and practice’ and ‘social production’, both requiring an active consciousness. There seems to be no point re-visiting those debates.
If you don’t think that China has changed its mid-20th century supposed ‘material destiny’, by its recent active social production, please explain its failure to do so.
You are making the same allegations propagated by the pro-China and the Maoists, so what is the difference?
We have been in China, and we know what the life of the workers is like, and they are still living in backward conditions
You are accusing the SPGB of materialism, but you are falling into the trap of bourgeois reformism
Chinese capitalism is working for the capitalist class, but capitalism all over the world is a backward economic system; it has already fulfilled its mission, including China
I’m not making any ‘allegations’, I’m asking questions.
Are the ‘backward conditions’ the same ‘backward conditions’ as 3-4 decades ago?
If so, you’re arguing that nothing has changed.
If not, can the changes continue to ‘progress’ (as the SPGB said, quoted earlier), and provide a model for other ‘backward’ economies?
If China has ‘fulfilled its mission’, does that mean further ‘progressive’ change can’t happen?
Social evolution as continuation of biological evolution
Marx sees modern industry as continuing the biological evolution of an animal’s “organs of labour” such as claws, teeth, wings, etc.
Continuity from the biological to the social is obvious enough when it comes to the reproduction of life, because we and animals, alike, are compelled to labour in order to survive.
Furthermore, we humans are theologically condemned to live “by the sweat of our brows” (Genesis 3:19), except for the social class that owns the means-of-production.
Those privileged persons have discovered the way to survive by the sweat of other people’s brows (Capital, Vol. I, Ch. 26. Primitive Accumulation).
It is precisely the working-class’s recognition of its exploitation by the capitalist-class that makes the only indispensable case for socialism.
All the rest can be dispensed with to varying degrees.
Meanwhile LBird sweats over the even-more dispensable case for evolutionary reform (in China and most everywhere else).
Capitalism rudely mocks him, like Shakespeare’s roisterer, Sir Toby Belch:
I’ll reform myself no better than I am.
The perennial case against socialism is the case for capitalist reform.LBird reveals his leftist stripe.
twc, surely the point of a discussion titled ‘Economic Reform in China’ is to discuss economic reform in China?
Have there been reforms? What are the reforms? Who benefits from reforms? Have they been successful? Do they provide a model for others? Must reforms always hit the buffers – if so, when? What is the time frame for this failure?
Discussion is how workers persuade each other, twc.
First time I appreciated how muddled a leftist you are.
So cock-sure when bad-mouthing the socialist party (day in, day out for a decade) but so diffident when silver-tonguing capitalist reform to the socialist party. What do you expect?
‘Bad-mouthing’, twc?
The only bad-mouthing on this thread has come from you.
Although, it always seems to be your response to being asked questions.
If you’re not interested in discussing ‘Economic reform in China’, why bother posting on a thread with that title?
It’s not bad-mouthing to expose a leftist as a leftist — an anti-socialist.
Here’s the evidence for your ‘leftism’ from my posts on “Economic Reform in China”:
- Post #260444. A sentence-by-sentence critique of your abuse of the term ‘market’ — of your working-class beneficent “Tool Market” (your neologism) and your working-class maleficent “Free Market” (circulation of commodity capital).
- Post #260779. A Marxian economic comparison of actual market compositions (export, import, investment, retail, government) of the GDPs of China and the US — their historical change over 1995-2025, and recent rates of exploitation (a critical indicator of capitalist growth — accumulation and reinvestment).
- Post #260862. A Marxian economic statement that a growing economy with a trade surplus (such as China) can ‘alleviate poverty’ in the reformist sense of ‘benefitting the workers’. A country running a trade deficit is largely bereft of this economic freedom.
- Post #260944. The indispensable case for socialism is the working-class’s recognition of its exploitation by the capitalist-class (in China and the US). The perennial case against socialism is the case for capitalist reform.
A socialist doesn’t fall for capitalist-class reform agendas, no matter how momentarily well-intentioned.
The actual capitalist system of markets, when put under stress, invariably turns true to its dominant capitalist-class interests, leaving your leftist, working-class beneficent, “Tool Market”, in its wake.
twc wrote: “The actual capitalist system of markets, when put under stress, invariably turns true to its dominant capitalist-class interests, leaving your leftist, working-class beneficent, “Tool Market”, in its wake.” [my bold]
Could you give us any clue as to when this ‘invariably turns true‘ in China, twc?
I’m not asking for a particular year obviously, but just a decade, or even a century?
Surely you must have a finite idea about ‘invariable truth’?
Surely a ‘scientist’ like yourself would make measurable claims?
Surely a ‘materialist’ like yourself would be dealing with ‘reality itself’, and not the mere wishful thinking of ‘idealism’?
Could you give us any clue as to when this ‘invariably turns true‘ in China
Yes, when its markets are “put under stress” — in times of economic downturn when its ruling-class can’t afford to lavish charity on its working-class.
The Chinese ruling-class operates under the same market conditions as its US and UK counterparts, whose captive governments are propping them up at the expense of their working-classes.
Perhaps, you surmise, that the Chinese capitalist-class will remain forever under the heal of a working-class beneficent Chinese government.
But, if its oligarchs are under the heal, what hope can there really be for its working-class.
Of course, your ignorant scientific sarcasm was triggered by my using your sacred epistemological term “true”.
In defence, my phrase “invariably turns true” is scarcely serious epistemology.
It is an outdated expression that prosaically conveys the same logic as “returns to type” (when poked) or “true to form”, which are readily understood in common English usage by normal people.
So, twc, to put it in simple terms, your answer to my question is ‘No’.
That is ‘serious epistemology’. No knowledge is generated by your ideas.
We’re no further forward in our discussion about economic reform in China than your belief that ‘the end times will come eventually’.
We’re no further forward in our discussion about economic reform in China
No, you aren’t.
You will stick to your fond delusion that the benevolent Chinese ruling class will — throughout economic good times and bad times — charitably tender to your reformist desires.
Such is the wilful blindness of rusted-on leftism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.