Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s that “we” again. So I take it you will be handing yourself over to the authorities in Beijing and demanding they punish you with death for starting the Opium Wars, helping the Manchu throne to crush the T’aip’ings, and deliberately diverting arms supplies meant for Canton to the warlord of Kwangtung?
The children in Liverpool’s cotton mills will have been gratified to hear they ruled the roost.
If I put up links it isn’t because I follow anyone but because I agree with the explanations therein.
It saves me having to repeat things at length myself, over and over, when there are articles with which I agree already in existence.I am an SPGB member, but as others here can tell you, I have had strong disagreements with other SPGB members on several things, especially on animals, free will, and psychoanalysis. We have no leaders and are not followers, and we have come together because of what we agree upon for the most part, and as a result of our own developments and life experiences.
Bijou, have to stop you on ” And as Chinese capitalism develops from feudalism.”
Chinese feudalism had been absorbed in the Chin dynasty into a landlord meritocracy. This was a form of what Marx called “the Asiatic mode of production”, which he was examining when he died so couldn’t finish.
Mao wrongly saddled China with the European scenario, in which capitalism did emerge from feudalism, and this has become the myth preached by the Chinese “Communist” Party. But feudalism hadn’t existed in China since the third century BCE.
(You will need to press translate. I wrote this article in Occitan).Lots of people are there. I’ve met Chinese who have never heard of the Ch’ing dynasty.
One doesn’t jump social systems like one jumps on a hop scotch ground.
Social systems evolve, each within its predecessor. The huge former empires of China and Russia, in both of which the national bourgeoisie was small and weak, and which were under the necessity of modernising rapidly in order to compete on world markets with the established capitalist nation-states, could only do so if the state itself took on the task of building capitalism: as per Lenin’s model.
Even during the Sino-Japanese War, capitalists were moving their workshops and factories into the Red areas, as more conducive to their businesses than the Chiang regime.
By the late 1970s the Maoist cocoon had produced a fully-fledged capitalism, just as the Bolshevik state capitalist cocoon had done in Russia.
The same processes had been followed by Mao in China and Stalin in Russia (but much more rapidly) as were carried out in Tudor England: the mass expropriation of the peasantry and other landholders (in Russia and China forced into so-called “communes” run by the state, rather than thrown onto the streets as in England), so, being forcefully deprived of the means of production for themselves, rather than on behalf of the state machine, they would have to work for the latter. China’s and Russia’s “Communist” party high officials thus became the capitalist class of those states, eventually ditching the Bolshevik model which had served its purpose.
The revolutions in Russia and China were capitalist revolutions, even though not initiated by the bourgeoisie itself.(Neither was Japan’s revolution initiated by its bourgeoisie (which was the lowest and most despised class in the country) but by the Satsuma and Chōshu samurai class.)
Since any label means something is what it’s labelled, then North Korea (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) must be a democracy?
” Castro and Mao were nationalists? Really? You mean like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler? The same Castro that allied itself with the USSR during the Cuban crisis, or the Mao that aided communist North Korea in the Korean war?”
Waste of time arguing with someone who puts mere labels before any consideration of substance.
