China

The fightback
User avatar
Dhalgren
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:22 pm
Location: Belly of the beast - south

Re: China

Post by Dhalgren » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:12 pm

Does all of this make us 'romantics'?
Sounds like it. I have to think about this for a while.
" If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism." Lenin, 1916

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:29 pm

Dhalgren wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:12 pm
Does all of this make us 'romantics'?
Sounds like it. I have to think about this for a while.
Yes, it does not sit well. But it's a pretty strong argument: you can't have socialism while the imperialists can have power over ya. And that's what it appears the Chinese are doing, beating back imperialism through economic development. Will it be socialism, communism, when the dust settles? Is it any of our business when we can't do shit here?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Dhalgren
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:22 pm
Location: Belly of the beast - south

Re: China

Post by Dhalgren » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:06 pm

blindpig wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:29 pm
Dhalgren wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:12 pm
Does all of this make us 'romantics'?
Sounds like it. I have to think about this for a while.
Yes, it does not sit well. But it's a pretty strong argument: you can't have socialism while the imperialists can have power over ya. And that's what it appears the Chinese are doing, beating back imperialism through economic development. Will it be socialism, communism, when the dust settles? Is it any of our business when we can't do shit here?
Well, one thing is I am not convinced that "socialism negated capitalism" in the 20th century. Just as capitalism and feudalism co-existed during the long transition from the one to the other, I see no reason not to think the same was true with socialism and capitalism. This s a long process from our worms' viewpoint and to say that socialism gets one shot and that's it, doesn't make sense to me.
" If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism." Lenin, 1916

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:44 pm

Dhalgren wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:06 pm
blindpig wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:29 pm
Dhalgren wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:12 pm


Sounds like it. I have to think about this for a while.
Yes, it does not sit well. But it's a pretty strong argument: you can't have socialism while the imperialists can have power over ya. And that's what it appears the Chinese are doing, beating back imperialism through economic development. Will it be socialism, communism, when the dust settles? Is it any of our business when we can't do shit here?
Well, one thing is I am not convinced that "socialism negated capitalism" in the 20th century. Just as capitalism and feudalism co-existed during the long transition from the one to the other, I see no reason not to think the same was true with socialism and capitalism. This s a long process from our worms' viewpoint and to say that socialism gets one shot and that's it, doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with you as per time, it would perhaps be better to say that in the 20th century socialism signaled or initiated the negation of capital.

Fair amount of discussion on this with the typical testy exchanges between RK & Phil, RK asserting that China is capitalist, Mao betrayed, while Phil taking position that anti-imperialism is socialism.(this all simplified) I don't entirely agree or disagree with any of it. Can't have socialism without anti-imperialism and while anti-imperialism will always serve socialism's purpose I don't think we can say the terms are equivalent. As to Mao being betrayed, well mebbe by the letter of the law but not by the spirit. There are millions of communists in China and I cannot think them all dupes. It may be that our(Western) ability to appreciate "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is muddled. Mebbe not.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:37 pm

some more tweets, more questions than answers

sanction empire‏ @pluriversal 19h19 hours ago

Q: could PRC have avoided 1997-98 IMF-attack crisis had it not aggressively accumulated foreign reserves via industrial production?

would this accelerated expansion of industry have been possible without the reforms (esp. in context of emergence of Sino-Soviet tensions?)

imagine horrible situation PRC wud be in today had it not resisted US financial attack that devastated Thailand, Indonesia, etc in '97

is it possible market reforms were a bitter and dangerous remedy to avoid an even more total world-destroying danger stalking the horizon?

Red Fanged Kahina‏ @RedKahina 18h18 hours ago

it can't be that there is only one possible outcome of all efforts. Was it in anticipation of 1997 that the capitalist roaders chucked the

leaders of the communist revolution in China in jail? I doubt it very much.Anyway there is no evidence of foresight of this sort.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:24 pm

Xi Jinping’s Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era
Posted by stalinsmoustache under China, marxism | Tags: 19th congress, CPC, Xi Jinping |
1 Comment
In what is clearly his most important speech yet, Xi Jinping spoke for three hours at the opening of the CPC’s 19th congress yesterday morning (18 October).

You can view the full video of the opening and Xi’s speech here (with English translation). Rather stunning in its relative simplicity, especially if you keep in mind that this is not only the congress of the largest political party in the world, but the most powerful communist party in human history.

In the next post, I will provide an infographics of the key points of Xi’s speech, but it is worth noting here that it has officially been designated as a significant new phase of Marxist thought in a Chinese context: Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

(Link for speech: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017- ... 683471.htm)

And in a speech in which Marxism is clearly the framework, it is worth noting the continuing importance of Mao’s ‘contradiction analysis’. The key is to identify through careful analysis the primary or most important contradiction that needs to be addressed.

For Xi: ‘What we now face is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life [mei hua sheng huo]’. By this is meant democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice, security, a better environment, and spiritual and cultural concerns.

https://stalinsmoustache.org/2017/10/19 ... a-new-era/

Not saying I endorse this view entirely, but it is persuasive. But it doesn't 'feel' right and ya gotta pay attention to your guts. Work in progress.

The point has been fairly made (RK) that the folks who put China on this road put a lot of Mao's old comrades in prison too. Hard to ignore, that. OTOH, perhaps those folks saw more clearly that the material basis of a socialist society required an NEP on steriods x10 to avoid being overwhelmed, as happened to the USSR, to some degree. And that the 'old guard' would never accept that.

work in progress
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:15 pm

Στενή Αυτοάμυνα‏
@Obscureobjet

On China

For some bizarre reason, western Marxists are caught in an endless debate on whether it is "socialist" or "capitalist".

This debate is bizarre for a number of reasons: a) there is rarely any developed explanation of what these terms mean or ought to mean now

b) there is an assumption that there is some kind of transcendental law that a society MUST BE either capitalist or socialist.

The fact that a number of European societies, were, after the end of the Middle Ages, no longer feudal and not yet capitalist doesn't bother

European know-it-alls, for whom "Europe 16th-19th c"=Britain.

Not, of course, does it bother them that economic inequality, private accumulation and an extensive market are found in several non European

societies in a pre-capitalist era. c) it is bizarre because it assumes a mechanical teleology according to which societies pass specific

stages in the following sequence: feudalism--->capitalism--->socialism. In fact, this particular sequence properly materialized NOWHERE.

Several major capitalist countries with origins in colonization, most prominently USA, Canada, Australia went directly to capitalism from

their origins in Britain and have stayed there, going nowhere else. Socialism made its first appearance in societies with a far lower degree

of capitalist development and prominent, albeit dissolving, feudal elements. None of this appears to register when it comes to China.

In China, the "pessimists" have discovered a metaphysical law one could call "repeat the USSR". For some inscrutable reason, they consider

it a historical necessity that China MUST follow the degeneration of socialist economy and politics in the S.U. Nor are they detracted,

indomitable as they are, by the very blatant fact that China began reforms far before Gorbachev and never went through a period of absolute

immiseration as a result of liberalization like, let's see, ALL THE COUNTRIES OF THE SOVIET BLOCK.

Further, the schema of seed and carapace is wonderfully applied: "from the moment free market relations enter a socialist framework", they

say, "it is inevitable that they will expand till they break this framework apart." Really? Liberal reforms began in China in 1978.

It's now 2017. 39 years later, the Chinese state is far stronger and with more popular legitimacy than before. Its laws are unquestioned

and its control over the economy iron hard. Whence this idea that relations of production overpower "naturally" every political restraint?

Marx or Adam Smith and his spectre of an invisible hand? Marx or the belief that capitalism develops "spontaneously", without state

legislative and repressive intervention? In the careful study of Marx on Primitive Accumulation, for instance?

The other and reverse camp: China is socialist because it is ruled by a CP? Hardly an adequate logical reason. Because ownership of the

means of production is socialized? Because there's no exploitation of labor for private gain? No, none of these things is true. What is true

is only that all land belongs to the state and that the state imposes effective, for 39 years, restraints on the extent to which full

capitalist relations can grow. Why does it do that? I venture to think because it planned it. It planned to use a limited version of a free

market economy in order to finance development rapidly and with drastic rates. Why didn't it do that within a purely socialist framework?

Because the scale of development it wanted and needed was vast and a still agrarian society, which it was in 1978, couldn't finance it.

So instead of going down the way of all developing countries getting loans from western sharks, it developed a strategy of its own.

Did it work? My God, did it ever!
Whither now?
To a "moderately prosperous society" is the first announced step.
Does that bother western

socialists? Why? Is it preventing them from the glorious revolutions they have been tirelessly working on in France, Britain, Germany,

Italy, Spain, Greece, etc? Really?

(and dare we add USA to that list..bp)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:29 pm

Fidel Castro says China is socialist - and he should know.
Hu Jintao Fidel Castro - Chinese president makes landmark visit to Cuba

Image
Fidel Castro and Hu Jintao, Cuba, 2008.

"If you want to talk about socialism, let us not forget what socialism achieved in China. At one time it was the land of hunger, poverty, disasters. Today there is none of that. Today China can feed, dress, educate, and care for the health of 1.2 billion people.

I think China is a socialist country, and Vietnam is a socialist nation as well. And they insist that they have introduced all the neces
sary reforms in order to motivate national development and to continue seeking the objectives of socialism.

There are no fully pure regimes or systems. In Cuba, for instance, we have many forms of private property. We have hundreds of thousands of farm owners. In some cases they own up to 110 acres. In Europe they would be considered large landholders. Practically all Cubans own their own home and, what is more, we welcome foreign investment.

But that does not mean that Cuba has stopped being socialist."

-Fidel Castro

... but apparently the teeming hundreds of the western "revolutionary" left seem to believe they know better about what socialism in a third world country should look like than Fidel does.
So whose opinion would you trust on this one? - Not A Dinner Party
Posted 4th October 2012 by Reiver97

http://not-a-dinner-party.blogspot.co.u ... t.html?m=1

**************************************

Spotlight: China-Cuba ties emblematic of Beijing's cooperation with LatAm, says Cuban expert

Image
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and Cuban President Raul Castro attend a signing ceremony for bilateral documents in Havana, capital of Cuba, July 22, 2014. (Xinhua/Li Xueren)

By Raidmundo Urrechaga

HAVANA, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- Cuba is vital to China's ties with Latin America, as their historical partnership, political affinity and increasing economic cooperation serve as a model for other countries in the region, said a Cuban expert on international relations.

As the first Latin American country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1960, Cuba naturally became China's gateway to the region, said Eduardo Regalado Florido, head of the Asia Section of the International Policy Research Center in Havana.

"Over the years after the reform and opening up drive, Beijing has expanded its ties with the world, and at this new stage Latin America plays an important role," he said.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's recent trip to Havana, the first official visit to Cuba by a Chinese premier in 56 years of ties, served to reaffirm the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

"Li's visit highlighted Cuba's role as a historical partner with which China shares political views and friendship," and underscored Cuba's "prestigious position in the region, due to its political leadership, and medical and educational programs," he said.


Image
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (L) holds talks with Cuban President Raul Castro at the Palace of the Revolution in Havana, Cuba, Sept. 24, 2016. (Xinhua/Huang Jingwen)

Economic cooperation has increased substantially, with China poised to become Cuba's leading trade partner in the short term.

"Cuba has also learned from China's reform and opening up, as it strives to modernize its socialist model," he said.

Havana was instrumental in promoting the consensus reached in January 2015 between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and China, which aims to spur shared development through joint projects.

For Latin America, China has become a leading investor instead of merely a market for raw materials and a supplier of electronic goods, he said.

"China plays a greater role in Latin America than the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. It has taken on the development of infrastructure and industries in many countries across the continent," he said.

China has shown that a socialist country can build a sustainable and prosperous society for its citizens, and assume global political leadership without ideological "impositions," he added.

"We are transitioning from a crushing U.S. domination to the first steps of a multipolar world led by Asia, specifically China," he said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016- ... 727842.htm
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: China

Post by blindpig » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 pm

So I got into an extended conversation with RK on this topic and she took a view diametrically opposite of the way this thread is trending. She contended that the Chinese revolution is entirely lost and the capitalists are entirely in control. A lot of her argument was based upon the work of Li Minqi, who is interviewed below.

*******************************

Interview – Minqi Li
E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, APR 7 2015, 583 VIEWS
Image

Minqi Li studied at Beijing University between 1987 and 1990, and participated in the 1989 student democratic movement. Between 1990 and 1992, he was a political prisoner. He came to the United States in 1994 and received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2002. From 2003 to 2006, he taught political science at York University, Canada, and since July 2006, he has taught economics at the University of Utah. His current research interests include the long-term movement of the profit rate in the capitalist world-economy, the structural contradictions of neoliberalism and global financial imbalances, global environmental crisis, and the historical limit to capitalism. His recent books include The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy (Pluto Press / Monthly Review Press, 2009) and Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the Limits to China’s Economic Growth (Routledge, 2014). His new book, China and the 21st Century Crisis, will be published by Pluto Press in 2015.


Where do you see the most exciting research and debates occurring in your field?

This is an interesting question. It may not be exaggerating to say that since the late 20th century, there have been no major theoretical advances in either neoclassical economics or Marxian political economy, as the two fields are traditionally defined. However, in my own research, I have benefited substantially from the world system literature and the ecological limits to growth perspective.

The most important question confronting all serious intellectual thinkers today has to do with how to understand our existing social system in the current historical conjuncture. Is the capitalist world system in a structural crisis? Can the various economic, social, geopolitical, and ecological contradictions be resolved within the system’s own framework? Or will the system have to be replaced by one or several new systems?

How has the way you understand the world changed over time, and what (or who) prompted the most significant shifts in your thinking?

I was a participant in the 1989 student democratic movement in China. The 1989 movement was a complicated historical event. Although it reflected to some degree the genuine desires for political and economic democracy on the part of the working class, the movement was clearly led by “liberal intellectuals” who were strongly anti-socialist and believed in free market capitalism uncritically. In fact, I was an economics student in Beijing University at the time and embraced the neoliberal economic model.

My political views began to shift to the left as I realized that a genuine popular democratic movement could not succeed without the mobilization of the working class, and there was an obvious contradiction between a political program, which called on the working class to support democracy, and the neoliberal economic program, which demanded privatization and massive layoff of state sector workers.

Since the turn of the century, the Chinese working class has been gradually radicalized, and a significant intellectual and social left has emerged in China. The overwhelming majority of the Chinese left today consider themselves as “Maoists” of one sort or another, reflecting the historical legacy of the Maoist revolution. In recent years, I have been actively involved in the Chinese leftist activities.

Both crises of capitalism and claims that they are symptoms of its demise have come and gone over the decades. What makes the current conjuncture qualitatively different?

An inexperienced doctor may provide a wrong diagnosis and prematurely announce that a patient is beyond treatment. But the recognition of the doctor’s mistake, even several times over, should not lead one to conclude that some human being can live forever.

Capitalism is a social system. That means it has certain essential characteristics and follows certain laws of motion. For capitalism to operate with these essential characteristics and basic laws of motion, it depends on certain historical conditions. But underlying historical conditions tend to change in the long run. Within certain limits, capitalism may adapt to the changing underlying conditions. But beyond certain limits, the underlying conditions begin to diverge so much from the range that is compatible with the basic operations of the capitalist system that the system can no longer reproduce itself. Then a bifurcation will occur leading to the system’s demise. I think this is essentially the same as Immanuel Wallerstein’s argument that the capitalist world system is now in a “structural crisis” (by “structural crisis”, Wallerstein means the final, insoluble crisis).

In particular, the defining feature of capitalism has to do with its capacity to accumulate capital on increasingly larger scales. This is what really distinguishes capitalism from all pre-existing social systems. An obvious limit to this tendency towards “endless accumulation” has to do with the ecological constraints. Of course, a technology optimist will argue that we can have both infinite economic growth and ecological sustainability. I think there are fundamental reasons why ecological sustainability cannot be achieved under the condition of endless economic growth, or at least with an economic growth rate high enough to sustain economic and social stability required for capitalism, no matter how you measure “economic growth”. In any case, it is beyond dispute that, despite all the talks about “sustainable development” or “green growth”, the world continues to head relentlessly towards global ecological catastrophes. We know this as we observe that the global ecological deficit (the gap between ecological footprint and bio-capacity) continue to widen and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases keeps rising year after year.

Capitalist accumulation has transformed the world’s social structures. Marx called this “proletarianization.” Of course, the proletariat has not yet become the “grave diggers” of capitalism. But the modern working class has greater organizational capacity and more advanced political consciousness, in comparison with the historical labouring classes. This has allowed the modern working class to demand a greater share of the capitalist economic output over time. The stronger working class power was the underlying cause of the major economic and political instabilities the capitalist world system suffered during the 1960s and the 1970s.

Neoliberalism has been the attempt of the system’s ruling elites to reverse the long-term historical tendency towards the strengthening of the working class power. Neoliberalism has partially “succeeded” in re-establishing favourable conditions of global capital accumulation largely by mobilizing the large cheap-labour force in China, politically made possible by China’s counter-revolution. But the Chinese working class will soon begin to demand more political and economic rights. China is now probably the only large economy where the workers’ wages have grown more rapidly than labour productivity (yes, the Chinese workers’ wages have been rising, and rapidly!). This reflects the growing power of the Chinese working class. At some point, this will precipitate the Chinese capitalist economy into a major crisis, because capitalism needs profit to function and higher wages reduce the profit rate. I don’t see another large geographical area to replace China as the next supplier of massive cheap-labour force. I don’t think India will be able to do it. In any case, the global ecological system cannot afford another “China” with a comparable level of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

In your article One Hundred Million Jobs for the Chinese Workers!, you argue for a transformation in China’s economic model away from its current export orientation towards a focus on domestic consumption. In practice, who would be the social forces supporting this change, and what opposition or structural constraints would they need to overcome?

In the article, I basically proposed a left-Keynesian economic policy that would help to alleviate some of the social and environmental costs of China’s current capitalist economic model.

Over the past three years or so, China’s political conditions have been dramatically changed. The remaining left-leaning leadership (led by Bo Xilai, the former Party secretary of the Chongqing city) has been purged. The 3rd Plenum of the 18th Party Central Committee decided to “comprehensively deepen economic reform” by privatizing the remaining state owned enterprises in the key economic sectors. Under the current neoliberal leadership, there is no chance for any progressive economic policy to be adopted.

However, in the future, when political conditions become appropriate, a democratic socialist government in China may adopt elements of the proposed policy as a transition strategy, which involves a large-scale public investment and employment program financed by taxes on capitalists, to absorb the underemployed labour force and undertake environmental improvement projects.

Over the last decade, we have seen a rise in South-South cooperation, culminating in the creation of institutions such as the Bank of the South and the BRICs Bank. Is this a significant phenomenon and does it represent a challenge to the traditional international institutions?

This is an interesting development. But for the moment, I do not see that institutions such as the BRICs Bank will significantly affect the basic dynamics of global finance. Although over the long run, it may contribute to the gradual erosion of the dollar hegemony. But I would not consider this to be among the most significant aspects of the current global capitalist contradictions.

In The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, you argue that global socialism is absolutely imperative to avert the catastrophes that climate change will cause. However, even without the drive for private profit, historic socialisms have also been very ecologically destructive. What factors will ensure that future socialisms are different?

The former Soviet Union and some Eastern European socialist states had a miserable record of environmental protection. But this needs to be put in the context that these states remained a part of the capitalist world system and therefore were compelled to pursue capital accumulation in order to match the western capitalist powers in industrial and military capacity. In the Soviet case, it was compelled to prioritise the “heavy industries” or the typical industries that emerged out of the “second industrial revolution” (oil, steel, machinery industries). Given the geopolitical conditions, it was inconceivable for the Soviet Union to specialize in consumer goods exports as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan did. This has not fundamentally changed in today’s “post-communist” Russia, except that Russia has been de-industrialized.

The basic contradiction between capitalism and environment has to do with the incessant drive for capital accumulation, which arises because market competition forces each capitalist and capitalist state to use the surplus value under its control to expand in order to prevail in the competition. Within the capitalist world system, some states that are advantageously placed within the system (such as the “core states”) may enjoy higher environmental “efficiency” than other states. But from the long-term historical perspective, there is no doubt that the modern environmental crisis has emerged during the historical era of global capitalism, and has deteriorated on a global scale as the global capitalist economy grows exponentially.

Within capitalism, there is no way to get around this contradiction (though it may be temporarily alleviated or moved around geographically as the core capitalist states relocate their pollution-intensive industries to other geographical areas) as, by definition, there is not a mechanism for the society as a whole to decide how the society’s surplus product should be used, whether it should be used for capital accumulation, public consumption, environmental improvement, or reduction of the general population’s working time. Only with socialist planning can the society as a whole collectively decide to use the surplus product for ecological sustainability.

Of course, socialist planning, even under democratic conditions, can still make wrong decisions. But under capitalism or any other market-dominated economic system, the mechanism for the society to collectively decide how to use the surplus product is simply not available. For those who still think it is possible to have capitalism and market economy while achieving ecological sustainability, they need to be reminded that the main virtue of market is supposed to be about competition (and the pursuit of self-interest). If we cannot eliminate competition between individuals, between businesses, and between states, how can we prevent these players from pursuing economic expansion on increasingly larger scales?

In Climate Change, Limits to Growth and the Imperative for Socialism, you highlight how the economic collapse suffered by the Russian economy in the 1990s would have to be repeated worldwide more than three times over to stabilize our climate at reasonable levels. Given the drastic fall in living standards experienced during this economic collapse, can an even larger fall in emissions be achieved now without such detrimental human costs?

The magnitude of emission reduction depends on the climate stabilization targets. Unfortunately, for all practical purposes, I think it is no longer possible to limit long-term global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial time.

It is still conceivable that the world may achieve climate stabilization with a long-term global warming no more than three degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial time. If global warming rises above three degrees, then in addition to the destruction of Amazon rainforest and a global sea level rise by more than 25 meters, we may end up with runaway global warming that destroys the foundation of human civilization.

To limit global warming to no more than three degrees (which may not be sufficiently safe to guard against the possibility of runaway global warming), global emissions need to peak before 2040 (with an average annual growth rate of emissions no more than 1 percent between now and 2040) and need to fall by about two-thirds between 2040 and the end of the century (with an average annual decline rate of about 1.5 percent).

By comparison, since 2000, the global economy has grown at an average annual rate of about 3.5 percent, the so-called “emission intensity” (the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) has declined at an average annual rate of about 1 percent, so that the carbon dioxide emissions have grown at an average annual rate of about 2.5 percent (3.5 percent – 1 percent = 2.5 percent).

During the historical period 1913-1950 (a period that included two world wars and the Great Depression), the global economy actually achieved an average annual growth rate of near 2 percent. Thus, an average growth rate of 2 percent (over a prolonged period of time) may be the minimum threshold required for global capitalist stability. If the long-term global economic growth rate is lowered to 2 percent and the emission intensity keeps falling by 1 percent-a-year, then we will still end up with an emissions growth rate of 1 percent-a-year.

Because of the infrastructure inertia (every year we can only replace a small fraction of the existing capital infrastructure), I think it will be very difficult for the world to push the emission intensity reduction rate above 2 percent-a-year for a prolonged period of time (a 2 percent annual reduction of emission intensity reduction roughly corresponds to a scenario where about a half of the new electric power plants are emissions-free).

Suppose, the annual emission intensity reduction rate can be raised to 2 percent, and the economic growth rate is kept at 2 percent, then at best we can achieve zero growth in global carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, to achieve a 1.5 percent annual reduction of emissions (not “emission intensity”), global economic growth rate will have to be limited to no more than 0.5 percent. Thus, it is unlikely that a reasonable scenario of climate stabilization (one that is consistent with the long-term sustainability of human civilization) can be made compatible with the global capitalist system.

(The above refers to global average long-term trends. It does not rule out the possibilities that individual countries or the world as a whole in individual years may achieve unusually large reductions of emission intensity or absolute reductions of emissions.)

When applying the world systems categories of ‘core’, ‘semi-periphery’, and ‘periphery’, a large number of countries with significant differences and unique histories are grouped together. Do you think the insights produced justify the generalization this entails?

In both physical science and social science, any theoretical concept will have to deal with the tension between generalization and individual particularities. The justification of a theoretical concept lies with its capacity to capture the long-term and structural forces that operate through a certain set of individual objects, forces that are not revealed or are disguised when we treat each object individually and separately.

The concepts such as “core”, “semi-periphery”, and “periphery” help to illustrate the historical distribution of world surplus value and how the concentration of a large portion of the world surplus value in the core countries has provided one of the necessary conditions required for global capital accumulation.

As global capitalism expands, the semi-peripheral countries, and eventually some peripheral countries, have been mobilized to participate in effective capital accumulation. Such mobilization has tended to increase the global labour and environmental costs as a growing proportion of the global population participates in resources-intensive material consumption. It also tends to reduce the share of the world surplus value that was historically available to the core countries.

As the structural forces of the core, semi-periphery, and periphery begin to operate differently from how they had operated from the 16th century to the 20th century, we may approach the end of capitalism as a historical system.

During your career, you have worked within departments of both economics and political science. Given the many insightful works of political economy that have been produced historically, what is your opinion on the separation of these two disciplines in academia?

I enjoyed my teaching and research at the Department of Political Science, York University. However, I have been trained as an economist and am not in a position to describe myself as a political scientist.

Modern neoclassical economics (the mainstream economics) considers itself to be the “science” about resources allocation, reconciling unlimited human wants with scarcity. In an ideal free market world, all individuals engage in voluntary exchange that produces the “Pareto Optimum” (the official definition of “efficiency”). By comparison, political science explicitly addresses the question of power, especially the power relations between the state and various social groups and between different states.

Both the mainstream economics and political science take the existing capitalist system for granted, as the highest stage of human development. On the other hand, Marxist political economy studies “social relations of production” and the capitalist “social formation” as but one particular stage in the human historical development. It is neither the last nor the most advanced that the human beings can ever accomplish.

What is the most important advice you could give to young scholars of economics, politics, and international relations?

I don’t know if I can offer the “most important advice”. I would confess that my intellectual world has been organized by “orthodox” Marxism. Methodologically, I follow “dialectical materialism”, which is different from the Anglo-American empiricism in many important ways.

“Dialectics” is by no means an obvious word. On the one hand, it is based on the understanding that “the world (the universe) is universally connected”, or every part of the world is in one way or the other connected to every other part. But connection leads to interaction and interaction leads to movement. So another fundamental proposition of dialectical materialism is that the world and every part of it are in permanent movement. In other words, everything (every physical and social system and every component of these systems) always tends to change.

Therefore, do not take anything for granted. I mean anything, including “capitalism.” The important task for a serious social thinker is to understand the conditions of social change (to interpret the world), and then to be a part of it (to change the world).

http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/07/interview-minqi-li/

I am not clear that there was a counter-revolution, though the post-Mao changes in leadership might be called a 'coup', I suppose. It was contended that steady socialist production based upon China's then extant productive base would have gotten the job done, but more slowly. Perhaps, perhaps, if China existed in a vacuum. In a world of hostile capitalists, good luck. Cuba has survived and accomplished great things on a shoestring but Cuba is no threat or competitor and while certainly suffering imperialist aggression it has not been on the 'front burner', as it were. China must be on the 'front burner'. China desperately needed cash for investment but was unlikely to get it with the Cultural Revolution ongoing. How better to disarm a capitalist than to present him with an opportunity to make money? Not to minimize the deleterious effect of capitalist practice upon workers and environment, still China's national sovereignty is assured and as previously stated, without that socialism is impossible. Li Minqi says that the workers are Maoist and opposing the capitalist. Who could imagine? Might this not be predictable? We see the Party re-emphasizing socialism, busting corrupt officials. These are the moves of 'capitalist roaders'? Or is what we are seeing the faith of a party in it's people playing out?

The above interview does not convey the tone of our conversation, the many examples of the Party's treachery were from the new book I think. And maybe largely true but context is important, eggs & omelettes. The making of history, like sausage, sometimes does not bear watching. And when a litany of other betrayed revolutions included Cuba it was time for me to bail. It was later said that American Maoists can be like Trots but I didn't want to go there.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Dhalgren
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:22 pm
Location: Belly of the beast - south

Re: China

Post by Dhalgren » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:26 pm

Maoists can sometime remind you of Trots, but from a different direction. The problem as always is standpoint. Where do you get the best view of what is happening? Multiple sources, nuanced interpretations, wait and see, benefit of the doubt - it all must go into the mix. Becoming strident doesn't help and RK is definitely strident.
" If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism." Lenin, 1916

Post Reply