Do the leaders in China still have their eyes on the ball?


“The development and progress of New China over the past 60 years fully proved that only socialism can save China and only reform and opening up can ensure the development of China, socialism and Marxism,” Hu said.

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86908&Itemid=1


"The development and progress of new China over the past 60 years had fully proven that only socialism can save China, and only reform and opening up can ensure development of China," he said at the nation's 60th anniversary celebration rally at the Tiananmen Square here Thursday morning.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=443660

I've wondered about this many times. Hu's speech, such as I have heard on BBC overnight and in what little is so far online, makes me wonder again.

if Hu was walking the walk, we'd support it with everything we had, right? Formulas about "capitalism is a requisite for socialism" be damned. Which, of course, is moot since China IS thoroughly capitalistic..right? (which includes rolling back and demolishing many(all?) of the advances made under Communist control)

They are the only bulwark against the American Empire; they are also one of that Empire's biggest props. China has helped the Capitalist murderers over the last couple decades, but they have managed to put themselves into a position to control at least some of what the capitalists do (even though China doesn't seem very interested in exerting any kind of control). For China to essentially face the US alone, it had to grow and strengthen in order to be able to stand against the big, blue monster; they opted to "de-socialize" their economy in order to grow and strengthen. Have the Chinese governmental leadership sold out? I think that maybe they have. The wealth and comfort and "leisure" that has accrued to the new "upper class" is, and will be, hard to let go of. One of the problems with socialism coming to a non-industrialized society is that the wealth of that society is generally insufficient to distribute and raise the living standards of the working people. Generally, what wealth exists is rerouted to socialize infrastructure and creating a base for servicing working people. After these expenditures, it takes quite a while for a, basically, pre-industrial society to create the wealth necessary to both improve the lives of the people and defend itself from capitalist/reactionary attacks that inevitably come hard and fast.

I don't think it is very surprising that China seems to have taken backward steps, even if it is regrettable. If there is a large enough and dedicated enough cadre of communists among the people and in any positions of power, the situation may still be saved; but that may just be wishful thinking. Just my take...

In a *very* pro-capitalist venue, in reference to bank bailouts and the crash of last spring etc compared to the Great Depression...this person was pointing out that foreign governments quickly reacted along with the US to help stabilize everything and the country they singled out for mention was China. Kudos to China for helping save capitalism, basically.

FWIW.

keenly aware of their history. The history of the previous centuries of degradation at the hands of foreigners is always on their minds. They have sacrificed socialism for national independence, imo.

but that is not Mao...