My opinion about China

Quote:

Granted, capitalism in modern Russia is brutal. But the disastrous policies of Stalinism were even moreso.

Evidence? I mean, every word here requires proof. Disastrous? Stalin has industrialized an agrarian country with 70% peasantry in 10 years - 1931-1941. This saved our lives in the Great Patriotic War - all european slavs and "lower races" were deemed for extinction. And how were his policies any more brutal? He at least gave most citizens in the state the right to labour. The salaries were high (thousands of roubles IIRC), the goods were cheap.

Quote:

I'm not sure where you got that 7 million figure from

150 - 143.

Quote:

but it pales in comparison to the numbers of dead that were on Stalin's hands.

Really? And what number is that, care to tell? Because so far I know that there were less dead in Stalin's time that you could directly blame on him (death in prisons and summary execution combined would not even begin to yield 7 million).

Quote:

...starvation and famine happened on large scales all at once under Stalin on an account of distinct policies

Most of the investigators of the famine think that the famine was similar in nature to famines in India, Tsarist Russia, etc. - it was party caused by natural circumstances (poor harvest) and partly by the lack of information in the communist party tops - the reports from Ukraine were producing unreliable figures, which forced the top brass to think that Ukraine's harvest is better than it really was. In that way, leading researchers like T.S.Ellman, S.Wheatcroft, Tauber conclude that the famines in Stalin's time could no more be blamed on Stalin than the famines of India and Tsarist Russia could be blamed on the then-existing governments. Sure, that's still a heavy accusation, but at least Stalin was developing such powerful agriculture so that the Soviet citizens would never have to hunger again.

Quote:

Many were taken to camps and many were killed on the account of mere ideology or affiliation.

Do you think that ideological prisoners contributed to the majority of imprisoned? On the contrary, they were the minority. The majority were real criminals. And I don't see an outrage because the US keeps as many people incarcerated as the total population of Stalin's gulags in the 30's.

Quote:

Thugs like Stalin and Mao force you to think a certain way.

Capitalism forces you to think a certain way too. I have been the witness of this change of mentality. People no longer plan their life in terms of work, family, etc. - they plan it in terms of career, money and possible ascendance to the capitalist class. Even from the very schoolboards the children are indocrinated into capitalism.

Quote:

It matters more where the wealth is concentrated more than anything.

And you think that the fact wealth in capitalism concentrates in the "golden billion" and requires a constant exploit of the periphery is going to vindicate capitalism? The global system of capitalism is designed in such a fashion - people would be willing to be capitalists more than workers, people want to be in the US more than to be citizens of their own countries. If you have the illusion that wealth somehow will come to places which are unprofitale for the capitalist to maintain... you're wrong. Russia is one of such places, it's an unprofitable place for investment and this is why capital is always running out of Russia, not concentrating there for the good of Russians. Stalin at least kept the investment _in Russia_. Now people are dying because all the capital is leaving Russia and pauperising it.

Quote:

Obviously, the standard of life in the United States is much better than in Russia, or even in most places in the world. However, both are capitalist. It matters more where the wealth is concentrated more than anything. My point is that, I'd much rather live here in capitalist United States or in capitalist (relatively socialist) western Europe than under Stalinism.

You can't compare life under Stalinism to life in the modern United States, the ground realities prevailing were WAY different.

During Stalin's crucial years, in WWII, you had panzer divisions streamroll onto your territories, with the intent of taking over your capital in a few months. Within the first week, 90% of your airforce is destroyed. I mean, those are tough times requiring tough measures. Stalin had to relocate his ENTIRE ECONOMY deeper east. This would surely take a HUGE toll on human life, especially if you're facing a marauding rampaging mechanised army right at your backdoor.

Also, the brunt of WWII was borne by the Stalin's USSR. After the war itself, the physical infrastructure of America was untouched. And the USSR's was pretty much in bad shape was choked to hardcore kick start its industry to compete w/ the US, which it managed to do.

Stalin managed to steer a heavily damaged war torn economy into a superpower and as a counterbalance to unipolarism. The US could profit from WWII because they didn't suffer any damage to industrial infra. The same can't be said about the USSR, who had a much uglier fate.

If you do think about it, today, in the US, they're fighting a war on terror. And a war on drugs. And who knows what the hell else. There are no enemy infantry divisions attacking America's borders. Neither are there reece flights over its airspace. Yet, despite the fact that the war on terror is fought outside US borders, they've used that same war to plunder almost every single democratic right in the book. I.E. Power to wiretap mails, power to indefinitely detain, power to arrest on suspicion etc., etc. Can you imagine what kind of hellhole it would be if the US was faced w/ the same ground reality as Stalin's USSR?

And the "Western" economies that got hit badly got bailed by the US, whose infra was unharmed during the war. The USSR had to bail itself out as well as bail its allies out, despite suffering heavy damage during WWII. This is a very difficult- and certainly messy- job.

I don't believe the Western / American capitalist economys woulda been any "better" given the ground realities Stalin's USSR faced.

China is just being more faithful to its own traditional foundation than relying on Western ideologies. I can see that China had been in a very terrible state from the 19th century to the late 1970s when Deng showed up.

Combining the two ideas above, we can see the today's Chinese society trying to be very stability-obsessed, facing the dynamic world.

I still hope that China is just going through a NEP.

somestudent: Just as a friendly warning. We call it necroposting when someone posts in a topic that is more than a few months old. It's not usually regarded as good forum etiquette. If you have something to say, the mods generally prefer it if you start a new topic.

Mabool wrote:

I still hope that China is just going through a NEP.

It isn't. Lenin described the NEP as a step away from socialism and partcial restoration of capitalism. Fidel called the Special Period a move for survival. Where China is dead wrong is that they believe these reforms are a step forward; whereas, past socialism countries have correctly described the restoration of capitalism as a step backward.

Oh God. These bastards.

Quote:

It isn't. Lenin described the NEP as a step away from socialism and partcial restoration of capitalism. Fidel called the Special Period a move for survival. Where China is dead wrong is that they believe these reforms are a step forward; whereas, past socialism countries have correctly described the restoration of capitalism as a step backward.

==I am not sure how you can call it a step "backward" since the socialist mode of production has never been achieved anywhere.

There has never been a case where the means of production and distribution are owned collectively?

I think collectively is a very difficult to pin down term. Is a state bureaucracy sinonymous with collective ownership? I'd say that depends on the state, and on the type of bureaucracy. Ultimately it's disputable.

Under the NEP, the vast majority of industrial enterprises were still state property, the state held a monopoly on all foreign trade, and the workers still had the right to go on strike. The market reforms were directed towards agricultural sector(which made up the majority of the economy) in order to maintain the alliance with the peasantry and help the economy recover from the war, not to industrialize.

According to wiki, agriculture in China only makes up 10% of the economy, and the majority of industrial & service sectors are private. They trade openly with countries all over the world, although the government does put limits so it's not completely free. China has 146 billionaires, making it the country with the largest amount of billionaires after United States. The "Princelings", the thousands of wealthy relatives of old party officials, are loathed by the people as a symbol of cronyism and nepotism. And above all, workers have very limitied rights, including not allowed to go on strike. I think there is little doubt as to what the nature of the People's Republic of China and it's policy of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is.

Didn't Turkey at one point also try an NEP style system?

China is alot more free than the usa, europe, canada, and australia. China has also not invaded any countries to steal their resources, like usa, europe, canada, and australia has. ive been to alot of different countries, and so far China is the best. it's hard to really explain why China without spending several days. when you enter China, they don't question you the same way they do in fascist places such as the usa, europe, canada, and australia. if you want fascist, then take a look at the usa, where they scan your eyes, and fingerprints. the usa also checks the credit card, and email accounts of all travelers entering the usa from europe. the usa engages in false flag terrorism, and just terrorism in general. afterwards, they sell anti terror equipment, such as body scanners, and xrays and make huge amounts of money. the usa also has 6 times more prisoners than China. italy finger prints their own citizens, the roma. france pays their immigrants to go back to their country. australia locks up asylum seekers. the canadian govt pays trolls to go online to spread imperialist propaganda. japan dumped 3 million gallons of nuclear waste into the pacific ocean. in contrast, China treats its minorities with respect, and dignity. if you look at the Chinese money, you will see photos of minorities printed on it. i doubt you will see this in any of these western "democracies". the cost to see a doctor in China is 15rmb. what is it in the usa? mainland China may not be communist anymore, but it's still a hell of a lot better than usa, europe, canada, australia, japan, south korea, hong kong, taiwan.

Quote:

if you want fascist, then take a look at the usa, where they scan your eyes, and fingerprints. the usa also checks the credit card, and email accounts of all travelers entering the usa from europe.

Um, they have started scanning fingerprints in recent years, but scanning eyes is something that I've never heard of. I don't know what it's like to enter the US from Europe, but neither I nor my parents have ever had our credit cards or email accounts checked, and we're not US citizens. It's also illegal for the US government to check people's email accounts for no reason, and if they do it, people can sue. It's called due process, and the US government, despite the PATRIOT Act has not done away with this completely.

Quote:

the usa engages in false flag terrorism, and just terrorism in general. afterwards, they sell anti terror equipment, such as body scanners, and xrays and make huge amounts of money.

I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy by capitalists to make more money. It's a result of poor decisions in foreign policies, but to be honest, I'd rather see more of these "anti terror" equipment floating around and decrease my chances of getting killed. Of course, it would be great if the US stopped doing stupid shit to piss off people in other countries and inciting anti-Americanism altogether.

Quote:

when you enter China, they don't question you the same way they do in fascist places such as the usa, europe, canada, and australia.

This I can agree with. I haven't been to Europe or Australia, but Chinese customs agents are a lot more relaxed.

I've been to China, and it is just an ordinary capitalist country.
To Raskolnikov, what do you define as Stalinism? Are you aware that per year, 14 million people die of starvation, mostly in countries like India, parts of Africa etc.? Are you aware that at its worst, during the 1990s famine, North Korean rate of malnutrition was about the same as in modern day India? Do you know that 50 percents of children in India are malnourished, and 15 percents are severely malnourished (read - emaciated to the bone)? Are you aware that Stalin's USSR had only 2 famines, the 1932 one and the 1948 one? Do you know that the conditions in India kill cca 80 million people per decade from poverty and hunger? Apparently, mass death from hunger is only called "famine" when it occurs in regimes that are an enemy to the West.

Also, how do you define "Stalinism"? Do you include East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, post-Stalin USSR etc... in it? If so then your claim are totally nonsensical. I live in Slovakia, which was Czechoslovakia once, actually, it was one of the more "Stalinist" states of the Eastern Bloc. My parents and gradparents and many older acquitances and friends lived in it. None have ever experienced hunger or starvation. The country was the 8. in the world in calorie consumption http://elections.thinkaboutit.eu/wp-con ... efacts.gif . Far from starvation, there was an obesity problem in many Eastern Bloc countries.

North Korea - it was well fed from the 1950s till 1992. The starvation in the 1990s was caused by the fact that USSR was no longer around, and could no longer sell oil at 1/10 its market value to North Korea. This meant that there was nothing to fuel the tractors and other agricultural machinery with. If your North American and Western European "capitalist paradises" experienced such an oil shortage, you'd all die of starvation because you wouldn't be able to go back to animal based agriculture. If your wonderful morally superior countries were suddenly dependent on oxen to till the land, you'd be poor like North Koreans too. It has nothing to do with "evil dictators". Yes, Kim Jong Il is a corrupt asshole who eats caviar. You think that his few grams of caviar would feed entire North Korea if he gave it to his people? Plus, DPRK is not in a famine situation anymore. There is a member who has travelled DPRK extensively, zaruka, and he can tell you that while there are nutritional imbalances in DPRK, there is almost zero actual starvation in DPRK now. Considering the country has almost zero oil, this is quite an achievement.

Quote:

I've been to China, and it is just an ordinary capitalist country.

Where within though? Beijing? Shanghai? There's a lot more to China than just the bits Westerners usually visit. If it's just "an ordinary Capitalist country" it certainly doesn't fit the Western model of an ordinary Capitalist country. Statements like this and another one I read recently , calling China "the most capitalist country in the world" show a profound ignorance of the nation, it's history, and it's people.

Quote:

There's a lot more to China than just the bits Westerners usually visit.

Yes,China is also the impoverished rural areas where hundreds of millions people don't have healthcare,education or (relatively) clean environment or certain basic rights.

Quote:

If it's just "an ordinary Capitalist country" it certainly doesn't fit the Western model of an ordinary Capitalist country.

It fits the model of a developing capitalist country quite nicely,with certain reservations.

Quote:

Statements like this and another one I read recently , calling China "the most capitalist country in the world" show a profound ignorance of the nation, it's history, and it's people.

Yeah? How come?

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Where within though? Beijing? Shanghai? There's a lot more to China than just the bits Westerners usually visit. If it's just "an ordinary Capitalist country" it certainly doesn't fit the Western model of an ordinary Capitalist country. Statements like this and another one I read recently , calling China "the most capitalist country in the world" show a profound ignorance of the nation, it's history, and it's people.

I'm not a Westerner (Slovakia is a post-communist country - not third world but not "Western" either) and a typical Capitalist country is a developing one. I admit I visited mostly the major cities, but even there you can see a lot of poverty, disabled beggars etc. . I am not claiming that it is the "most capitalist country in the world", it is a cheap labor country like most third world countries, but with a lot of state ownership in the economy. I was there with my dad and he knows how a socialist country looks like, he has lived in one after all, and China is not one. I am not condemning China through, they are much better than places like India, Somalia, Colombia etc...

Yeah ok mate. I wasn't really directing my annoyance at you personally. I get a bit pissed off at the anti-China bias and ignorance a lot of Leftists have. At least you've travelled there and hopefully talked to some of the locals. You're right to say that China is not a Socialist country, but I don't think Capitalism is a good description of its economic system either. It is a mixed economy in the literal sense. Many of the socialist policies from the Mao era still exist despite of the market reforms. Five year plans still exist for instance and they remain quite important to the overall direction the country takes. And in the political arena, there is simply no comparison between China and nations without a Socialist history. The government still maintains overall control rather than Capitalists as a class. All it takes is for the left faction of the CPC to regain dominance, and the market reforms would begin to be reversed. There would be nothing Capitalists could do about it short of starting a civil war, unlike in the West.

China just doesn't fit most Western models for comparison. It is too different, culturally, economically, and politically. Not to sound like a nationalist, but China does things the Chinese way.

Quote:

You're right to say that China is not a Socialist country, but I don't think Capitalism is a good description of its economic system either.

What is it then? A country can be capitalist or socialist,there's no "third way".

Quote:

It is a mixed economy in the literal sense.

Yes,so is pretty much every European state.Mixed economy is a term that doesn't have anything to do with class.

Quote:

Many of the socialist policies from the Mao era still exist despite of the market reforms.

Like?

Quote:

Five year plans still exist for instance and they remain quite important to the overall direction the country takes.

Many capitalist countries also had five(or 4 or...) year plans.
But i highly doubt that the Chinese 5 year plans serve as anything more than indication mechanisms.I could be wrong of course.
Besides,a planned economy doesn't make a country socialist anyway.

Quote:

And in the political arena, there is simply no comparison between China and nations without a Socialist history.

What exactly does this mean?

Quote:

The government still maintains overall control rather than Capitalists as a class.

Sure,although it seems to be gripping less and less tight.How's that different from governments in most West European countries anyway?

Quote:

All it takes is for the left faction of the CPC to regain dominance, and the market reforms would begin to be reversed.

Except that it won't happen.Not with all those billionaires "greasing up" everyone,including the Army.

Quote:

China just doesn't fit most Western models for comparison. It is too different, culturally, economically, and politically. Not to sound like a nationalist, but China does things the Chinese way.

Yeah and Americans do it the American way,the Japanese do it the Japanese way and the Norwegians do it the Norwegian way.What's the class nature of all these countries? Capitalism of course.