by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog
The other day, I was trying to visualize the conversation that would take place on a rainy humid day in July 2021, in a cafeteria in the Eurasian region of heaven where Karl Marx, Robert Owen, Comrade Lenin, Chairman Mao, and Generalissimo Chiang would meet. Purpose – to exchange critical views around the Communist Party of China (CPC) centenary and China.
Generalissimo Chiang would start the conversation, “Mr. Mao, congratulations on the hundredth anniversary. Tell me what did you really achieve by pushing me and Kuomintang out of mainland China?”
Chairman Mao would reply, “It was obvious! We wanted to build a socialist China based on Marxist-Leninist principles, for which you were the biggest opposing force. The CPC was always looking out for enlarging the anti-imperialist democratic front – even a section of Kuomintang joined us! But you steadfastly denied, on the contrary you acted viciously to wipe out the proletarian struggle in China.”
Chiang chuckled, “Well, that happened in past. Now, mainland China progressed a lot to become the largest economic power ahead of my friend (USA) and second largest military power next to your friend (Soviet Union or Russia), but it still has too much of inequality among three types of citizens – filthy rich businessmen and capitalists, struggling workers in farms and factories, and self-employed city dwellers burning midnight oil in their small ventures. If only economic growth and military power were the objectives, even Kuomintang (after emancipation from the cliques with vested interests) would have achieved similar targets!”
At this point, Comrade Lenin, the eternal revolutionary, came to the rescue of his cherished student Mao, even though they never met. Lenin replied, “Mr. Chiang, it’s a long haul, it would be a very complicated journey. My follower relentlessly struggled to establish the CPC as the vanguard of socialist revolution. His team had to develop the productive forces, build the initial social capital for further economic development – that called for a capitalist economy. Unfortunately, the European geopolitics didn’t allow my New Economic Policy to succeed in developing the productive forces in Soviet Union”.
The old ‘patriarch’ Karl Marx couldn’t remain silent anymore. He appeared to be in a reflective mood and shied, “I was sure about the appraisal of ‘capital’, but wasn’t sure how to turn the ‘surplus value’ into irrelevance after gaining the political power. Also, neither I nor Engels got came out with a definite blue-print on how ‘state’ would wither away! As long as a few fellows could own land, and resources as their property, get hold of technology, and could exert influence on the state apparatus, neither ‘capital’ nor extreme inequality would go away. Mao’s team still has a long way to go. However, this is a great occasion to cheer up the Communist Party that was founded in China hundred years back.” Marx would turn to Lenin with silent reprimand, as if Lenin stood guilty of his team’s failure to reach a century even after scoring a swashbuckling half-century under the leadership of Stalin against the Zionist-capitalist clique who staged two world wars by then for wanton destruction of Eurasian heartland!
Marx would continue, “so many groups of revolutionaries in dozens of European and non-European countries came forward since 1848 to build a socialist society through a socialist revolution, but most of them messed up their movements mid-way. The CPC withstood the test of time, which is now leading the most populous country (with 18% of the total global population) and churning out approximately 19% of the total global GDP on purchasing power parity basis. Even if the CPC hasn’t yet closed the first step of a socialist society, this is an occasion to celebrate their incredible perseverance!”
Chiang obviously didn’t want to join issues, for he never had time for such ideological discussions; Mr. Chiang’s faction only understood power and wealth based on rudimentary nationalism.
The discussion so far was not to the liking of Mr. Owen. He deemed it fit to jump in, with apparently robust argument, “Mr. Marx, aren’t you ashamed of so much of bloodshed by your followers, the so-called revolutionaries, and yet not even the first step of Marxist Socialism is complete in case of China?”
The quintessential activist in Marx flared up suddenly, “Mr. Owen, enough of such allegations! Let me ask you two simple questions – firstly, even if other groups of socialists also fought against injustice and inequality globally, why there was not a single case where they could come to political power?” Owen was speechless, Marx continued, “Let me respond! Whether in the past or in present, no socialist group other than the Marxists will be able to come to power AND build truly socialist society, because their ideology was based on only compassion and courage, it lacked the foundation of scientific analysis.”
Marx leaned towards Owen, and murmured in a soft tone, “Did you notice the difference of the present status of the standard of life between China and India, both of which started their journey as a modern independent country with humongous load of population as the decade of 1940s was drawing to a close? The proletariat and petit bourgeoisie in China are leading a quality life which is way ahead of what their brethren enjoy in India – on all parameters like education, health, employment, income, household expenditure, leisure, life expectancy etc.! There were dangerous obstacles in the struggle of the poor Chinese for emancipation and dignity under the banner of communist party, hence there was bloodshed. If such impediments do not arise, then a socialist revolution would become peaceful without bloodshed! Now the Chinese people are leading a life which is worth living! Compared to that, what did the social democrat faction (of the most prominent political party) achieve in India, even if they ruled India for more than four decades immediately after independence? Now, after three decades of exploitation under neoliberal capitalism, on one side, two-thirds of population, the plebs, earn on average even less than a dollar per person per day, and on the other side, the Indian bourgeoisie continue accumulating more wealth than others in Asia!”
The moment was ripe for Lenin to take a centre-stage. He became brutally frank while addressing Owen, “Mr. Owen, the Utopian socialists, the Anarcho-socialists, and the social democrats are blinded by jealousy of our limited success – otherwise how could they blame the Marxist socialists for every problem that overwhelm the humanity! Isn’t that utterly funny? Not only us, but all other socialist groups were equally sickened with the exploitation and injustice meted out by the capitalist bourgeoisie! The capitalists have not changed, so is it that the Utopian socialists, Anarcho-socialists, and social democrats changed their track to become lackeys of the capitalists?”
Lenin continued, “if they have truly anti-capitalist anti-imperialist anti-Zionist ideology then, there is every possibility that the Utopian socialists, the Anarcho-socialists, and the social democrats would become successful in the long run – maintain your separate identity as a party, if you wish so, but adopt our goal which wisely mix empathy with wisdom, which identify actions along with the dream. Join our front in every nook and corner of the globe!”
And, that ended my day-dream. Is the dream, a blasphemy in the ‘post-modern’ era when half of the 1% Zionist-capitalist oligarchy fund a section of academia and media to beat the hollow drum of democratic nationalism, while the other half of the same 1% oligarchy fund another section of academia and media to sound the trumpet of capitalist globalism, thereby creating a false dichotomy that would perpetually keep 90% of the population of the globe engaged in stupid arguments over the future of humankind? Is the dream, a wickedness in the current ‘post-modern’ era when the 1% Zionist-capitalist oligarchy successfully obscured the real issue of accumulation of wealth and power by them, and obfuscated the very definition of ‘democracy’, ‘autocracy’, ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’, and ‘communism’ to turn their meaning upside down? Be that as it may, now, as the CPC celebrates a splendid 100 years journey, I would like to look into the details of how socialism, the only antidote to Zionist-capitalism, has been welcomed in China!
2. Socialist Revolution & China
In the medieval world the traders and businessmen were inseparable from their wealth/money/capital. The evolution of ‘capital’ as a separate entity from the businessmen, traders and entrepreneurs took quite a long time. During 15th, 16th, and 17th century when aristocrats and financers of west European kingdoms and empires were fully absorbed into ‘mercantile capitalism’ and ‘agrarian capitalism’, the underlying dynamics were fully related to ‘primitive accumulation’ (even though no body spelt it out that way). The primitive accumulation of wealth (as capital) taking place within the entrepreneurs- traders-bankers of different countries of west Europe through their far-flung imperial ‘colonies’ in the continents of North America, South America, and Africa soon became the harbinger of ‘industrial capitalism’ at the dawn of 18th century west Europe. Even before that, the capitalist system of finance matured in the beginning of 17th century Netherlands – world’s first stock exchange as well as world’s first bank using the fractional reserve system were established in Amsterdam. Capital became a global force to reckon with, by the end of 19th century, when the entire world came under the sway of west European Zionist-capitalist oligarchy whose primary objective was to relentlessly pursue accumulation of capital – essentially, the journey of ‘capital’ to reproduce itself infinitely, passed through extermination of hundreds of communities across the globe and ceaseless exploitation of natural resources of mother earth. Karl Marx bared it all in the ‘Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I’ as “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation ……The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organized force of society.”
Between 18th to 20th century in Europe, many intellectuals, economists, politicians, philosophers, and social activists raised their voice against the Zionist-capitalist savagery in which their state became willing accomplice. They did extensive analysis of how the different stages of capitalism exploited the society and transformed majority of the people into poor plebs ruled by a group of wealthy aristocrats who would bend any established rule to ensure accumulation of profit and wealth from any kind of business – from slave trade to opium trade. Different European thinkers (in Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, Russia) became political activists trying to organize (a) political party that would fight for rights of the working class, (b) awareness among public about inhuman treatment meted out to the people in the colony owned by the state. Different political groups were formed by the advent of industrial capitalism during this period, each of which professed to a particular ‘ideology’ of political economy built over time by few intellectual-cum-activists – prominent among them were Utopian socialists, Anarcho-socialists, social democrats, and Marxist socialists. All of these ‘socialist thoughts’ had one common theme – working class people are exploited by the business owning class, and the workers must get their due share of revenue from industrial operation.
Throughout the second half of 19th century, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels enriched the philosophical basis of socialist thoughts and carried out extensive economic analysis of mode of exploitation – thus ‘Marxist socialism’ evolved, and the political activists who would follow the socialist thoughts of Marx and Engels came to be known as Marxists or Marxist socialists or Communists. Till date, hundreds of intellectuals, politicians, economists, activists, and philosophers across the globe contributed to the development of Marxist socialism, and enriched the Marxist literatures. Most prominent among them was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, the Russian revolutionary better known as ‘Lenin’, who during his short lifespan of 53+ years (a) formulated the procedures of practical implementation of Marxist socialism in a country, (b) analyzed the economic relation between imperialism and capitalism, (c) coordinated the Russian Revolution that formed the first socialist government in Russia, (d) guided the newly created Russian government towards economic and geopolitical. Since mid-20th century, most of the political parties across the globe who followed Marxism, identified themselves as ‘Marxist-Leninist’ – that made perfect sense, for it was Comrade Lenin who first brought the theory down to practice.
2.1 Basics of Socialist Dream
Any country and its people can be depicted as interplay among five socio-political entities, where community as the central entity deals with four other entities which are modern historical constructs (with roots in ancient and medieval history). Four relationships between community (identified as ‘1’) at one side and state apparatus (identified as ‘2’), political party (identified as ‘4’), ally states (identified as ‘3’), adversary states (identified as ‘5’) on the other side are crucial for a community to survive and flourish. This has been the case ever since human civilization started experimentations with political entity. In reality, the state and the party both are extended part of a community itself (hence, intraneous entity), while outside states can be termed as extraneous entity. The following block diagram figure 2.1 depicts it:
Every society/community is the expression of a continuous interaction between the ecosystem and a group of people. A community lives and thrives within the boundaries of the ecosystem – if the ecosystem is frayed, the community can’t thrive. The main socio-economic actors in the modern history, after industrial capitalism transformed the lifestyle of human beings, are portrayed in the schematic diagram figure 2.2 given below.
Significant observations that can be noted from a glance at the above diagram are:
1. There is a clear pattern emerging out of the interaction between ecosystem and community – the economic activities of the community draws EVERY MATERIAL (except finance, technical, managerial knowledge, and labour efforts) from the ecosystem that is processed into goods and services. The 1% people (termed as bourgeois capitalist) who have inclination towards wealth accumulation, contributed towards the creation of the social superstructure containing state apparatus, law, monetary and banking system etc. in such a way that, the output of economic base would continue to enrich them generation after generation through a benefit accrual cycle:
Ecosystem → Economic Base → Capitalists → Ecosystem
2. Since the economic base is using every material input from the ecosystem (other than labour and other efforts of the society) for production and distribution of goods and services, and NO INPUT CAN BE FUNDAMENTALLY CREATED BY THE BOURGEOIS OR ANYBODY ELSE, how could a class of people (termed as proletariat) of the community be deprived of the fruits of the economic activities? Every person has a ‘natural right’ to the benefits as per the concept of ‘natural justice’. Laws are made by humankind, but NATURAL JUSTICE AND NATURAL RIGHTS ARE IMMUTABLE CONCEPTS of the creation that can’t be challenged by humankind. Hence Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao (the doyens of Marxist socialist theory) unambiguously wanted to create a benefit accrual cycle that would scotch the earlier fallacy and create an appropriate cycle:
Ecosystem→ Economic Base→ Community→ Ecosystem
2.1.1 The Essence of Marxism
A socialist society would convert all classes of people into stakeholders of economic performance of the country instead of leaving it on to invisible ‘market forces’ (which is a façade under which the Zionist-capitalist operated economy accumulates wealth and power on behalf of the 1% oligarchy). The objective of socialism is to bring widest possible freedom and maximum possible development for every citizen in a classless stateless society. Every human being (irrespective of background identity like age, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, and region) should become free from hunger-disease-insecurity-injustice, each citizen should spend time in socially useful productive work, people can carry out research in academic areas, they can seek entertainment-pleasure at leisure time, without any of these being morally or physically harmful to any other people or section of the society.
As per Marx, the history of humankind is a struggle between antagonist ‘classes’ over the fruits of economic activities. Whether the slave mode of production in ancient era, or feudal mode of production in medieval era, or capitalist mode of production in modern era, the working class was always exploited by the dominant class of the era who constructed the system of state, law, bureaucracy etc. as institutions to perpetuate their rule – hence, the majority plebs remained paupers throughout the history while the aristocrats remained wealthy.
In the capitalist mode of production, some of the elements of ‘factors of production’ (viz. the ‘means of production’, and financial capital) are treated as ‘capital’ and two other elements of factors of production (viz. labor, and entrepreneurship) utilize the capital to produce goods and services. The produced goods (and services) have different ‘use-value’, and in a barter society real and specific useful labor that went into making of the goods would be considered as ‘exchange-value’ which is tied closely to the ‘use-value’. In modern capitalist society, that real labor is removed from the goods, and abstract value of labor is attached to the produced goods which results in the labor efforts getting objectified. Similarly value of the produced goods get transformed from use-value – in the capitalist market, artificially calculated exchange-value dominates. In order to generate surplus (monetary capital as profit), price of the produced goods in money-form becomes cost of input materials plus labor plus ‘surplus/‘profit’ (ignoring things like interest and depreciation). Thus, the capitalist who owns the finance capital and means of production, earns profit (in monetary form), accumulates profit endlessly, while the laborer don’t get the price of labor.
Every means of production whether the ‘subjects of labor’ (raw materials, natural resources including source land, energy, water) or the ‘instruments of labor’ (tools, machinery, factory including land, other infrastructure) which go into production of any material (from a grain of wheat to a car) and service (from electricity supply to 5G communication) is drawn from natural resources, while the processing is done by a team of people (Labour) supervised by technical specialists. Hence, any entity like a family, or a business that use such ‘produced goods and services’ only utilize natural resources and human labour. Thus the capitalists’ accumulation of profit is more immoral because he/she is not the creator of natural resources.
As per the Marxist theory, there should be two-stage transformation in a socialist society which looks like:
The stage 1 transformation >> Capitalist society (bourgeoisie democracy) to
Socialist society (dictatorship of proletariat)
The stage 2 transformation >> Socialist society (dictatorship of proletariat) to
Classless socialist society (also termed as Communist society)
The most significant modification of Marxism happened with Lenin’s theory that proposed: a Marxist political party would act as a vanguard party of the proletariat which would seize the state power, and steer the economy and society until the political environment across the world is conducive for classless stateless society (where party would lose its significance).
If Marx was 100% right, ‘capitalism’ as an economic system has to go. David Harvey (2015) criticizes capitalism as ‘a system which lives beyond its means through a banking and finance system that takes on too much debt’, ‘a system which pays its workers too little to consume all of the goods it produces’, ‘one which is ruining the environment’. There is little doubt that Zionist-capitalist oligarchy created a globalized society of monumental inequality – Oxfam said in January’2020 that, 2,153 dollar billionaires across the world have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people (i.e. 60% of the planet’s population), and top 162 billionaires have the same wealth as the poorest 50% of global population (link: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/billionaires-inequality-oxfam-report-davos_n_5e20db1bc5b674e44b94eca5?ri18n=true). There can be even less doubt that, nature abhors the state of disequilibrium.
2.2 Socialist Dream – China, the Last Man Standing
As on date, there are 155 countries in the world with population more than 1 million. At least two-thirds of the countries have one or two political outfits which identify Marxist socialism as their guiding principle – these parties/outfits have been around for a long time, may be on average 75 years. However, the current environment is a downward slide after the world-wide socialist movement witnessed phenomenal success in three regions apart from east and south-east Asia:
1. East Europe – Soviet Union helped many communist parties of east European countries to come to state power after WW II. Later on these countries formed ‘Warsaw pact’ that included Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany. Not only Soviet Union led the economic rejuvenation of the Warsaw pact countries after complete devastation of WW II, Soviet Union contributed immensely towards national liberation of African countries.
2. Africa – many countries that fought liberation war against the west European colonial masters saw the triumphant parties professed Marxist socialism as their guiding principle. Countries like Algeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia, Angola, and Zimbabwe had governments and ruling party leadership who wanted to progress the newly independent countries through the past of socialism.
3. Latin America – in most of the countries in South American continent and Central American region, Marxist parties were organized against the well-entrenched lobby of local oligarchy and American oligarchy who would invariably manipulate every government towards oligarch-friendly policies that would exploit the natural resource and 90% plebs. In countries like Chile, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador Marxist parties struggled, but success eluded most of them.
Apart from the above mentioned countries where Marxist socialist political parties and discourse were popular in the past (and in some countries, still popular), there were many more South American, North American, African, and Asian countries where multiple groups of revolutionaries stood against exploitation and dehumanization by the local and comprador oligarchy, and struggled to seize political power through a socialist revolution. But, most of them messed up their movements mid-way – some of them couldn’t withstand the onslaughts by Zionist-capitalist oligarchs masquerading as democratic populist party leaders, some other simply betrayed the ideal in order to stash illegitimate wealth offered by the Zionist-capitalist clique, and finally there were a few leaders who were wrong from the very beginning about what is socialism! There was another unfortunate factor which played to the detriment of the worldwide socialist movements – unity among various ideological factions within a Marxist party was mostly absent, hence the policy and planning for struggle towards achieving political power differed. In many countries, the struggle within various factions of a Marxist party resulted in multiple splits and continuous depletion of resources, time and efforts of leadership of all factions.
With the implosion of the Soviet Union as a state and CPSU as a party between 1989 CE and 1991 CE, Marxist socialist political parties around the world lost much of the moral and material support to continue their journey towards socialism, and as matter of fact, most of those political parties changed their ideology to identify democratic capitalism as their goal. Only 5 countries viz. China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba still got a Marxist socialist party controlling the state power. The socio-economic realities in all countries, however, point out towards high degree of exploitation, dispossession, lack of income, and overall poverty among the plebs, 90% of the population – the significance of Marxist socialism refuses to go away!
The CPC has always been one of the most vibrant communist parties in the world, which witnessed many violent field battles against adversaries as well as ideological battles between various factions within the party built around policy and implementation programmes since its birth in July’1921. Between July’1921 and October’1949 the CPC built the mass base in rural and urban regions as well as created an army (Peoples Liberation Army) that fought against the Kuomintang after it became clear that Chiang Kaishek faction of Kuomintang party would not share power at the central government with the CPC. In October’1949 People’s Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed by Mao as the PLA won the war against the Kuomintang army – the leadership of Kuomintang settled in Taiwan group of islands declaring Republic of China (ROC) as an independent country. Technically PRC and ROC both claim to be the legal representative of China.
While none of the CPC leaders seriously debated about what would be the final shape of China after achievement of 2nd and final stage of socialism (class-less state-less communist society was never really a subject of detail discussion among Marxist socialists because Marx was vehemently opposed to any such blue-print of a distant future), senior leaders like Mao, Zhou, Liu, Deng, and their factions debated exhaustively on what would the 1st stage of socialism look like and how to achieve that. Marx-Engels-Lenin mostly engaged in deliberating the advent of capitalism in European society, hence theoretical discussions and writings on socialism in ‘Asiatic’ society remained a far cry from what was expected by the 20th century socialist revolutionaries in China, India, and Indonesia. Rightly judging that, the social capital and productive forces built in China between 1950 CE and 1980 CE as grossly inadequate for a stage 1 socialist society for sustaining in the highly competitive global economy and complex geopolitical reality (ideological divide between the CPC and Communist Party of Soviet Union in mid-1950s turned into unfortunate hostility by end of 1960s), Deng and his successors went on to develop theoretical framework of ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’. When judged unbiased, ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ appears to be built on three pillars – (a) Leninist principle of communist party acting as the ‘vanguard of socialist revolution’ was followed with complete dedication and the CPC remained all-powerful authority, (b) the terminology of ‘market socialism’ propounded by Oskar Lange was borrowed and used with ingenuity by the CPC, but the concept of Lange was never really implemented anywhere in Europe or in China, (c) the productive forces including the ‘animal spirit’ of capitalists were unleashed under strict control of the Chinese state.
During the next 40-year period from 1980 CE to 2020 CE, the CPC spearheaded the rejuvenation of the Chinese society and state through astounding growth of China’s economy, complete eradication of absolute poverty, and imbibing all sorts of technology. The drive towards industrial capitalism in China using the global finance owned by the Zionist-Capitalist bankers and industrialists (initiated by Deng) was followed up by the succeeding CPC leadership in such sincerity that, the Zionist-capitalist Deep State representatives like Kissinger concluded that transformation of the Chinese society and economy into a Zionist-capitalist system was forthcoming. With China’s entry into the world order triad (USA-West Europe-Japan), the new configuration would have become USA-West Europe-East Asia. Meanwhile, Soviet Union and Warsaw pact got dissolved. Zionist-capitalist clique was sure about China ditching Marxist socialism to join USA camp by the turn of the past century. Chinese government went all-out to create free trade zones for global Zionist-Capitalist interests which wanted more and more profits towards endless accumulation of capital, and hence were busy shifting their manufacturing base to China to harness low-cost labour and slack regulations. By 2008, China became the third largest economy in terms of GDP nominal (as per IMF estimates USD 4604 billion) and largest export base in the world (In 2007-2008, its Export-to-GDP ratio reached 32%, and its Exim-to-GDP ratio was 59%). But during this process, China also became a society where inequality was one of the highest in the world – Gini coefficient increased from around 0.3 in early 1980s to 0.49 in 2008. The media, and academia funded by the Deep State went all-out to woo the CPC leadership towards ushering a new era of ‘political reforms’ after such a brilliant success of ‘economic reforms’ – by ‘political reforms’ they meant introduction of democratic election based multi-party system with liberal capitalism. However, after 2 decades of continuous and intensive persuasion, by 2008 CE, the Zionist-capitalist Deep State cabal concluded that, the CPC would never change their ideological color – the CPC leadership just utilized the capitalist system, capital, and technology from USA, Japan and west Europe to perform a ‘great leap’ forward towards the industrialisation of China! Since then, the world order controlled by the Zionist-capitalist Deep State has been putting up innumerable obstacles on the path for further economic and social transformation of China.
As it stands today, only a few Marxist communist/socialist/ workers parties, who continue to be led by bold, capable, and visionary leaders through generations, are able to sustain their journey. Among the 5 countries which still got a Marxist socialist party running their government, China has the largest Marxist socialist party. If China shied away from the ideology of Marxist socialism, the philosophy of socialism will get a quiet burial across the globe. Remaining 4 countries (Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba) possess too insignificant landmass and population to gather sufficient moral and material strength to continue their journey on the road to socialism against the brutal economic sanctions by Zionist-capitalist world order. China led by the CPC, is the proverbial ‘last man standing’!
3. Socialist Revolution – All’s Well That Ends Well
3.1 Stage 1 Socialist Dream in China
While every socialist-minded people all over the world applaud the stupendous achievements of mainland China led by the CPC, as it celebrates the centenary, they also point out that, there is still a long way to go before the CPC can claim a successful socialist society in China.
A news article with a headline “600 million with $140 monthly income worries top” appeared on the Global Times website on 29th May 2020 (refer link: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189968.shtml) and another with a headline “China’s 400 Richest 2020: Total Wealth Surges Amid Pandemic” appeared on the Forbes website on 4th Nov 2020 (refer link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2020/11/04/chinas-400-richest-2020–total-wealth-surges-amid-pandemic/?sh=5b1c42d13d7a). In a Marxist socialist country, such income inequality is a natural outcome of the phenomenon, what I paraphrase as: the significant aspects of stage 1 socialism are yet to be achieved in China. Chinese government took remedial action as noted in the article “China to issue 20 billion yuan in subsidies to farmers” (refer link: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226522.shtml) that appeared on the Global Times website recently. However, such corrective action is not really a substitute for permanent resolution – remedial measures need to be taken up at the level of policy formulation and implementation.
During past 4 decades, China implemented a mix mode of economy, which was essentially a combination of ‘state capitalism’ and ‘private capitalism’ supported by the Zionist-capitalist global oligarchy with finance and technology until about 2008 CE. The Zionist-capitalist motive force generated very high degree of momentum within the Chinese mainland unmatched in any of its past ‘enterprises’ whenever the force went to ‘invade’ new territory around the globe. The main challenge for the present Chinese leadership is to dissipate the energy of that storm so that, the energy can be harnessed for social benefits as much as possible, while damage from the storm is kept at a minimum as the society turns deep into socialism. With Zionist-capitalism so well-entrenched within the bourgeois class and the economy, the CPC wouldn’t be able to a take an ingenious decision of a single-stage transformation to a classless and stateless society. On the eve of centenary celebrations, the CPC should finalize on a prudent realistic approach of two-stage transformation. The following tasks should be taken up to implement the final aspects of the stage 1 socialism in China:
(a) Action point 1 – Implementing the concept of ‘restricted-profit enterprise’ to bring all economic activities (as mentioned in the sub-section 3.1.1) under its sway EXCEPT a few vital sectors, and simultaneously making all classes of society stakeholders for enterprise performance (as owners of the enterprises), instead of only the capitalist class and the state owning industrial enterprises;
(b) Action point 2 – Implementing a robust banking and monetary policy by following a judicious mix of the ‘fractional reserve theory of banking’ (broad banking for creating credit money) through 50% of the banking/financial institutions and ‘financial intermediation theory of banking’ (narrow banking that is transactional in nature) through remaining half of the institutions, instead of individual bank/ financial institution practicing the ‘credit creation theory of banking’ to create debt money out of thin air in connivance with the ever-greedy capitalist class;
(c) Action point 3 – Restructuring the agriculture and related sectors towards liberating tens of millions of surplus workforce (currently underemployed and unemployed), and simultaneously making new initiatives for agro-based industry in rural regions, instead of the rural economy remaining burdened with an overcrowded agriculture sector;
(d) Action point 4 – Planning and control of national economy with an eye to increasing the spending capacity of all sections of the society, so that the household consumption expenditure becomes the mainstay of the economic growth by contributing at least 50% of the GDP, instead of investment and export playing the lead role to support economic growth;
While action point 1 and 2 are truly (socialist) revolutionary concepts directly favouring the proletariat (and the petit bourgeois) against the bourgeois capitalists, action point 3 and 4 are concepts related to sound economics that fight against inefficiency and unsustainability. Four action points collectively target to erase exploitation and inequality which are still part of the quasi-capitalist economy of China and to implement robust monetary and economic measures that will be instrumental in achieving the stage 1 socialism.
At least the following subjective impact analysis should be done meticulously during detail planning:
1. Impact on GDP and GNI
2. Impact on prices and inflation
3. Impact on employment and income
4. Impact on consumer households (i.e. people from different classes of the Chinese society who consume goods and services)
5. Impact on producers (i.e. different enterprises, and individuals of the Chinese society who manufactures/produces goods and services)
6. Impact on Chinese importers (the enterprises in China who import goods and services from foreign countries)
7. Impact on Chinese exporters (the enterprises in China who export goods and services to foreign countries)
8. Impact on MNC with business operation in China (imports and sells in China, manufactures and sells in China)
9. Impact on MNC with business operation in China (manufactures and exports to foreign countries)
10. Impact on local governments
11. Impact on central governments
12. Impact on Peoples Bank of China (PBoC)
13. Impact on global banks with business operation in China
14. Impact on foreign governments
15. Impact on Multilateral trade organizations
16. Impact on projects funded by Chinese government
17. Impact on projects funded by foreign governments
Socio-economic scenario simulation should also be done during detail planning:
1. Computerized simulation of pessimistic scenario that assumes actual duration of implementation to be double than planned duration calling for almost double resource and efforts
2. Computerized simulation of optimistic scenario that assumes actual duration of implementation to be 80% of the planned duration thereby saving resource and efforts
3. Computerized simulation of probable scenario that assumes actual duration of implementation to be 20% more than the planned duration thereby causing little additional resource and efforts
Both the individual impact analysis and socio-economic scenario simulation need to take into account the past 3 decades of socio-economic landscape of China and make projections for 2 decades into the future. We need to remember, if central planning system of Soviet Union failed to take into account the population, geography, and goods/services requirements satisfactorily, lack of enough computational power and adequate information were to be blamed – the theory and proposition was not responsible for its debacle. The following subjects should be considered as part of the socio-economic landscape:
i. Parameters on national GDP accounting
ii. Parameters on production
iii. Parameters on sales
iv. Parameters on prices and inflation
v. Parameters on labour force
vi. Parameters on international finance and trade
vii. Parameters on balance of payments
viii. Parameters on income and expenditure
ix. Parameters on Human Development Index (HDI)
x. Parameters on environmental sustainability
3.1.1 Action Point 1:
Ever since the intellectuals and economists in early modern Europe raised their voice against the exploitation by the privately owned industries, the question of ‘ownership of means of production’ took central position (along with the question of ‘money as finance capital’) in every debate concerning struggle against capitalist mode of economy. Mainly three different ideas got substantial support among different shades of socialists – (a) ownership by public/community, (b) ownership by ‘State’, and (c) ownership by ‘workers’ cooperative’. Mode (b) had been the most preferred option for the socialist parties that came to power in Soviet Union, East European countries, China, Vietnam, and Cuba, because it was assumed that a ‘state’ represented a ‘community’. However, in my opinion, mode (a) is the most genuine because only that can deliver all the benefits of ownership to the individual level of the community – not only the appearance of ‘state’ as expropriator gets averted, but people’s self-esteem and involvement with the economy increases. Let’s revisit what happened in Soviet Union and East European countries in the beginning of 1990s – when the Zionist-capitalists were dissolving the socialist state, constitution and system, they picked up all productive assets – factories, mines, facilities – at almost no cost by manipulating the then state administration of Soviet Union. The ‘state’ was the owner of all productive assets, hence the people were just bystanders, they didn’t resist since they didn’t own. In future, if and when the Zionist-capitalists in China organize themselves to stake its claim on state power, community ownership of means of production and other productive forces will be the ONLY repelling force that would save the day for the CPC.
The action point 1 should be implemented at every sector/sub-sector of the Chinese economy (that are concerned with natural resources and economic base of the society as shown in figure 2.2) and its interaction with every class in the society in such a way that address specific issues and concerns of the society as well as the economy. Because of the unparalleled significance of ‘Manufacturing (defense & space)’, ‘Banking, Finance, Insurance’, ‘Education’, and ‘Healthcare’ sectors, ownership of those four sectors should be only vested in the state, to begin with. The ownership of remaining all categories of means of production needs to be legally transferred to the community (and the state) in an orderly manner – EVERY CITIZEN AS HE/SHE TURNS 25 YEARS, SHOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY OF ENTERPRISE(S) TO BECOME AN ‘OWNER’ under this scheme, what easily can become the largest transfer of wealth in the history of humankind. The ownership would remain non-transferrable which means that the share is not trade-able at the share market, and at death the ownership gets terminated. An indicative scheme of ownership for the 12 sectors/sub-sectors is given below in table 3.1.1. It is to be noted that, the percentage of ownership indicated in the table is for EVERY ENTERPRISE/FACILITY and NOT for a sectors/sub-sectors in totality – e.g. in the ‘Real Estate & Construction’ sector, equity of each of the organizations/facilities should be distributed among citizens belonging to 5 classes/sub-classes of the community as noted in the same table so that, each class gets 20% equity, it does NOT mean that 20% of the enterprises/facilities in the ‘Real Estate & Construction’ sector should be owned by each of the 5 classes. Approximately 73% of the population of China would be beneficiary. Since the entire conceptual philosophy behind this proposition is to put an end to basic causes of exploitation and inequality among various sections of society, the implementation of this vast programme has to be done in such a way that at least 1 member of every family residing in 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities of PRC becomes beneficiary of this scheme.
The table 3.1.1 given below has been constructed with a certain degree of thought process that took into consideration things like (a) criticality of a sector to the sustenance of the state and the party (a ‘vital’ sector shouldn’t be opened for community ownership at this point of time), (b) future urban-rural population (urban population would become two-thirds of the total population, hence more sectors should be serving that compared to rural people), (c) the state (and the party) should play a role as ‘stabilizer’ among different classes of owners in every enterprise, hence a token presence is required on the ownership table. However, before implementation, the concerned team of CPC should suitably modify to reflect the ground realities more appropriately (except increasing the share for bourgeois).
|Economy sectors & sub-sectors||Community||State|
Rural labourer, unemployed
Urban labourer, employed, unemployed
|Petit bourgeois – Rural peasant, craftsmen||Petit bourgeois – Urban technologist, manager,
|Bourgeois – owning or controlling capital|
|i) Agriculture & related areas||20% Ownership||—||70% Ownership||—||—||10% Ownership|
|ii) Mining & related areas||20% Ownership||—||70% Ownership||—||—||10% Ownership|
|iii) Utility||—||40% Ownership||—||40% Ownership||10% Ownership||10% Ownership|
|—||40% Ownership||—||40% Ownership||10% Ownership||10% Ownership|
|—||40% Ownership||—||40% Ownership||10% Ownership||10% Ownership|
(defence & space)
|vii) Banking, Finance, Insurance||—||—||—||—||—||100% Ownership|
|viii) Real estate & construction||15% Ownership||20% Ownership||15% Ownership||20% Ownership||20% Ownership||10% Ownership|
|ix) Technology-based services||15% Ownership||20% Ownership||15% Ownership||20% Ownership||20% Ownership||10% Ownership|
|x) Education||—||—||—||—||—||100% Ownership|
|xi) Healthcare||—||—||—||—||—||100% Ownership|
|xii) Other Services||20% Ownership||20% Ownership||20% Ownership||20% Ownership||10% Ownership||10% Ownership|
There would be a couple of significant counter-arguments to suggest the proposed implementation of action point 1 as an ‘impossible task’ or a ‘utopia’:
1. Primarily there are four types of domestic enterprises operating in China mostly in industry and services – state-owned big/medium sized corporates, private-owned big/medium sized corporates, state and private joint ownership companies, small companies owned by individual professionals. How could the ownership pattern be changed without disturbing the management as well as without impacting the performance of the enterprise? Answer to that can follow similar logic of how a company maintains its structure and functioning after it is taken over by another corporate entity through acquisition of majority equity share with an understanding that existing setup won’t be disturbed by the new owner;
2. Assuming on average 4-member family, there would be about 350 million families in China spread over about 9.6 million sq.km. How could even 1 member from each family get ownership share in even 1 enterprise that brings material benefit to him/her? There is no standard answer. There has to be rigorous analysis covering all types of enterprises (According to a report by China’s Administration for Industry and Commerce released on 14 January 2016, more than 77 million companies were active in mainland China) in all sectors/sub-sectors to explore physical and financial capital base built over past 7 decades, and thereafter optimum restructuring of equity capital has to be done for each of those enterprises in all sectors/sub-sectors (except 2). Then only a clear picture would evolve about how so vast number of citizens can be accommodated;
3. Another significant question is whether the existing private owners would at all accept proposed dilution of their equity stake, and if they agree then what would be the terms-conditions, and if everything is settled, then whether they would continue to manage the enterprise as they did in past. This is the most significant question from legal perspective. The bourgeois class executives would not mind diluting their equity stake in existing enterprises because (a) China’s private entrepreneurs are politically co-opted by the CPC, (b) by working through the party-state networks all over the country, private businessmen understand that they are a very important part of the current national economy, (c) bourgeois class is a numerically very small part, may be 1% of the Chinese community, still sizeable equity stake for them has been proposed in 6 sector/sub-sectors (as given in table 3.1.1) which is disproportionately high when compared to numerically much larger part of the society;
4. Last but not least is the question – how could a business enterprise function under ‘restricted-profit’ environment. Generally, an enterprise functions with ‘profit’ (e.g. business operation) or ‘non-profit’ (e.g. social work) orientation. But, as per the guiding principles of socialism, endless accumulation of profit can’t be an objective for a socialist society. Hence, during implementation of action point 1, procedures for enterprise functioning with restricted profit has to be laid out that neither violates the socialist principles nor kills the spirit of business operation. Steps may be – (a) exhaustive analysis of all factors of production that go into production and distribution process for all types of business operation under each of the listed 12 sectors/sub-sectors (e.g. ‘Manufacturing – traditional’ has, say, 15 sub-sectors like food & beverages, textile & garments, metal processing, light engineering goods, consumer durables, heavy machineries, automobiles, chemicals & fertilizers, hydrocarbon processing, pharmaceuticals, rolling stock, shipbuilding etc.); (b) setting up of optimum range of operational expenditures – input material cost, input labour hour, input energy cost, factory and machinery depreciation, cost of financial capital, cost of technology, cost of managerial coordination etc. – across the entire value chain of each of the sub-sectors (e.g. 15 sub-sectors of ‘Manufacturing – traditional’); (c) setting up of optimum range with upper and lower limit of operating margin, product/service price, profit, share of profit to be reserved and share of profit to be distributed among shareholders. We, the protagonists, need to always remember ‘when there is a will, there is a way’
3.1.2 Action Point 2:
In commodity exchange, one exchanges a commodity for money, and that money is exchanged again for some other commodity. One sells in order to buy something else for consumption – Marx identified this cycle as Commodity-Money-Commodity (C-M-C). In modern economy, with ‘money’ as the exchange medium as well as store of value, one can buy in order to sell at a higher price – Marx defined this as Money-Commodity-Money (M-C-M), the formula for capital. Free from the use-value of an item, this ‘money’ can move on continuously as profit-making finance capital. For the business of usury, the cycle becomes even sharper – Money-Money (M-M). Till 1970 CE, the traditional capitalist concept of accumulation of monetary capital as ‘profit from business operation’ continued as usual. Money supply through banking system (exogenous money created either by manufacturing paper/metal currency or by fractional reserve system, also called money multiplier model) of a country not only positively impact the business cycle, but it has an impact on inflation, and the price level also. Empirical evidence suggests a direct relation between growth in the money supply and long-term price inflation. In the post-Keynesian Europe and America, Zionist-capitalist oligarchy found that, in order to tackle inflation and price more effectively, the central banking institutions of countries across the globe (including the countries in European and American continents) were restricting the money supply for their economy (by NOT creating new money), which in turn restricted the flow of credit money to grow businesses owned by the capitalists. On the other hand, in the 1970s and 1980s most of the businesses were operating in severe competitive environment across the globe, input costs were not favourable always, fuel costs were up, product prices were too competitive with Japanese companies becoming more cost-effective – all these factors impacted the traditional process of seeking exorbitant profit from businesses in the era of ‘industrial capitalism’. Thus, as a result of two simultaneous pressures, the endless accumulation of (money) capital became much more difficult than the Zionist-capitalist oligarchy expected.
Hence, the academia and media funded by the Zionist-capitalist oligarchy dusted off an old theory of endogenous money and gave it a new life – credit creation theory of banking. This concept of credit money heralded a new era of Zionist-capitalist exploitation of the earth and humanity through ‘financial capitalism’. Starting in 1980s beginning, financial capitalism saw its ‘golden era’ during the 1990s and 2000s until the financial crisis overwhelmed American and European economy in 2007. But soon after the financial shock, financial capitalism found its way in the same fashion like before. Central banks in advanced countries maintain their official stand as exogenous money creation through fractional reserve system, but in practice, many banks in developed countries create endogenous credit money while paying lip service to principles of prudence and conservatism (refer “Post Keynesian Endogeneity of Money Supply: Panel Evidence” from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257594497_Post_Keynesian_Endogeneity_of_Money_Supply_Panel_Evidence). Under the endogenous money theory (and, practice), ‘the supply of money is a function of profit expectation’. As per the Jewish tradition of banking and usury, the central theme of this theory is endless accumulation of money. The bourgeois capitalist businessmen would start calculation from ‘profit expectation’ which would derive the ‘income of firm’, this in turn would derive the ‘demand for credit’ as per which the ‘credit money creation’ would become the responsibility of the banker (the leader of the team of capitalists). Hence, the traditional flow of causality through fractional reserve system (Reserve → Deposits→Loan) gets reversed as Loan → Deposits → Reserve under this endogenous credit creation system. For endogenous money, the interest rate is not determined by the market mechanism (like the supply of and the demand for savings, the supply of and the demand for money). Nominal interest rate set by the central bank is applicable.
During past 4 decades of the era of financial capitalism, as and when the Zionist-capitalist oligarchy in a country decide to accumulate more money without going into the ‘painful’ mode of industrial capitalism, they create a flow of credit money through connivance with the management of commercial banks (staff at the higher positions in industry and banking are ALWAYS selectively appointed by the oligarchy) each of which has country-wide network of regional offices and branch offices, ostensibly for growing business operations. Question can be raised, “so what, the credit money drives creation of new business that helps growth of the overall economy”. The answer is, “no, it is not so”. Apart from a glitzy ‘project report’, none of the business objectives are ever honestly mentioned. Industrial and Service sectors are the prime target areas where hundreds of millions of investments are demanded as ‘project loan’ from commercial banks, and after receiving the amount, half of the amount gets transferred the foreign/domestic accounts of the ‘businessman’ and their accomplices, remaining half may be actually invested in the project. In many cases, after couple of years the businessman declares the project as dead and business operation as bankrupt. In many other cases, where the targeted project came to fruition, it can be easily proved through post-completion report that, the loan taken from bank was about 150 – 200% more than the actual project expenditure. This is how, in all countries throughout the world the wealthy oligarchs have been accumulating money, only a small part of which comes through profit from business operation. And, this ‘mechanism’ of ‘getting rich fast’ has been popular among senior-level technocrats of state-owned enterprises in all developing countries (including China) – Zionist-capitalist oligarchy happily accommodates such turncoats as part of the oligarchy. On the other hand, this swindle of a very large section of Zionist-capitalist business-owners results in bad debt problems for the country.
Government of China has to grapple with the bad debt problem continuously for past two decades (refer link: https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-s-bad-loan-season-descends-again-and-this-time-it-may-be-really-bad-121021700184_1.html). Writing off trillions of bad debt as non-performing asset from the books year-after-year is not really a solution. Unless and until the procedures and systems of banking-financing and money circulation are made full-proof along with complete prohibition of the endogenous credit money, PBoC won’t be able to see a clean slate ever in the banking sector.
As proposed in action point 2, the worst performers among banks and financial institutions should be converted into ‘narrow banks’ where deposits would be used to buy government bonds, but no investments in shares. Lending would be done using the deposits only (following ‘financial intermediation theory of banking’). Narrow banks are safe banks; there would be very limited credit risk. The danger of non-performing loans and subsequent injections of capital (using taxpayers’ money) would be grossly mitigated through narrow banks. Remaining banking institutions should religiously follow ONLY the money multiplier model of the fractional reserve system for creating credit money required for economic growth. PBoC should keep reserve requirement ratio at 25 – 30% which may be considered as a prudent base for credit money creation through fractional reserve system. Thus supply of money would be maintained, but unscrupulous capitalists won’t find a route to carry out bank robbery any time they wish.
3.1.3 Action Point 3:
Agriculture and related sectors in China has innate unbalances – the country has only 9 – 10% of the total arable land in the world, and 7 – 8% of its fresh water, but the sector’s output has to feed about 18 – 20% of the world’s population. Agriculture in China had been the core economic activity since ancient era. In the post-WW II when PLA won the civil war against Kuomintang, rural peasants were the most significant base of the communist party. The people’s commune system was established in Mao era, which was changed into the household responsibility system in Deng era. With progress of time, the improvement in productivity and income per capita as a result of such structural changes always taper down. Agricultural output has increased leaps and bounds over past 7 decades (with temporary dips). However, current problems of the agriculture and related sectors can’t be wished away:
(a) Diminishing plot size of the arable land (average size – less than 1 hectare) due to division among family members with each generation,
(b) Availability of water for irrigation remains a challenge especially in the northern half of the country
(c) Income of farmers lag behind the urban population by a very large gap
(d) Increasing demands for agricultural and dairy products, meat, and fish due to two simultaneous factors – population growth as well as change in dietary patterns especially in the urban regions
(e) Environmental degradation due to the ever increasing use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
(f) Decreasing area under cultivation due to rapid township development projects
There are unresolved dichotomies in the agriculture sector in China:
1. If farmers’ income rise becomes more important, then high-value crops need to be cultivated; but that would require releasing arable land currently under food-grain cultivation, which in turn would affect the goal of self-sufficiency in growing food-grain
2. If afforestation is increased as a measure to address environmental pollution, semi-arable land should be released for that purpose; however, that would result in further reduction in the agricultural land, which in turn would impact production of both food-grains and high value crops
Under the restructuring of agriculture and related sectors action point, government should consider a mid-way between village-level people’s commune and household responsibility – contiguous plot-owners should form cooperative enterprises so that plot size remain above 10 hectares. Such plot sizes would enable the cooperative to deploy most modern farm equipment. Government should ensure that farmers’ produces are picked up at farm-gate at a price that covers the cost of inputs, labour, and a net income that is significantly higher than current income per capita in rural regions – essentially it would require subsidy payments in a systematic way. Finally, such cooperatives would indirectly result in release of the surplus labour into industrial and service sectors – migration to urban areas is highly probable, unless government launch new initiatives for agro-based industry and electricity generation system through renewable sources like solar and wind energy.
3.1.4 Action Point 4:
In a brief, accurate write-up, The Guardian website provided the economic data related to Chinese economy from 1980 to 2016 (Link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980). The export-oriented economy that Deng set in motion (following other East Asian success stories in 1970s and 1980s) during 1980s has been performing with extreme efficiency and effectiveness till now. The statistical indicators point out to that fact. However, household consumption expenditures remaining slightly below 40% of the GDP still remains a matter of concern for the policy making body of the CPC (GDP of China in 2019 CE was Yuan 99492.74 billion by expenditure approach, out of which Household Consumption Expenditure was Yuan 38589.56 billion i.e. 38.78% of GDP). There are two sides of the issue – (a) household consumption expenditure has been increasing steadily for past few decades, but the growth in GDP due to exports (and investments in infrastructure asset creation) readily outsmarted the household consumption growth, and (b) the potential for household consumption contributing a minimum of 50% of the GDP has not been unleashed yet.
In my opinion, both the perspectives of household consumption ‘dilemma’ need to be seriously addressed. After 2008 CE, the steadily growing trade and commerce between China and USA as well as China and West Europe has been a boon for the Chinese economy and bane for the Zionist-capitalist oligarchy. On top of it, the BRI programme, that aims to revolutionize the infrastructure and trade in Asia, Africa and South America, has sounded the alarm for the existing Zionist-capitalist world order. The existing world order would explore all type of ‘programme’ that attempts to hinder the existing trade and commerce between China and USA-West Europe-Japan triad (link: https://asiatimes.com/2021/06/american-decoupling-from-china-deconstructed/ ) as well as implementation of BRI programme. The CPC leadership should take note of it, and make preparations for absorbing a possible dent in exports (and imports). And, the question of substantial increase in household consumption appears on the horizon right away.
Under the scheme for boosting household consumption, the purchasing power of the rural population needs to be enhanced substantially. For the urban citizens of China, consumption is a way of life – generally, they enjoy life with increased income. However, for the entire country, apart from enacting laws that would ensure increase in salaries-wages-bonus in every types of enterprises, the government has to explore a creative way that would indirectly increase the propensity for consumption expenditure. Chinese government should seriously consider making education and healthcare a subject of governance. Thus, all arrangements, from creation of infrastructure to providing services, related to education and healthcare should be made by the government for every citizen of China. Citizens, as per their income category, would make payments for such services – this would require subsidies, since the poor section of the society won’t be in a position to cover the expenditures fully. However, once the population is free from the biggest concerns of daily life, the consumption expenditure would increase in true sense. (It won’t be inappropriate to mention here that, in the USA, education and healthcare services form a substantial part of the consumer expenditures, because the general population is turned into debt-serfs through credit money created out of thin air by the Zionist-capitalist banking cabal – but following USA as the role model for society and economy is hardly an intelligent decision for a Marxist socialist government).
3.2 Debate on Four Action points
There would be couple of valid questions from China watchers:
1) Question from intellectuals who identify themselves as ‘ideologically pure Marxist socialist/ Communist’ would be invariably on whether the continued presence of ‘market’ and ‘money’ in China (as I envisage in this article) would allow transformation of the society into a stage 1 socialist society. True, most of the early socialists detested market and money by assuming these as the root cause of all evils, and there were serious research in inter-war Europe and Soviet Union to propose how socialist society can function without market and money. The famous socialist calculation debate during the inter-war period between Austrian School (Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek) and neo-classical and Marxists (Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner, Fred Taylor, Maurice Dobb, and others) was a discourse on the subject of how a socialist economy would perform economic calculation in the absence of the price, money, capital market, and private ownership of the means of production. Without getting into the logic and analysis of such research provided by either side, I would like to maintain that socialism as an economic system is far more efficient than capitalism from social and environmental perspective, and that socialism is highly feasible. In my opinion, Socialism won’t be mortally wounded, if centralized economic planning work as complementary to market mechanism, enterprise functions with restricted profit accumulation, and money is used as a medium of exchange and an unit of calculation (instead of labour-time or physical unit of measure). In defense of my stand, I would quote David McMullen from his working paper titled “Re-Opening the Debates on Economic Calculation and Motivation under Socialism”, “there is nothing preventing an economy where the means of production are socially owned from having an effective price system as long as it can replace the profit motive with a desire by people to undertake work for its own sake and to serve the common good.”;
2) The intellectuals who wouldn’t give a damn to ideology, would like to ask, now that China has almost become a superpower in the realms of industry, technology, defense and space, why to bother about little ideological things like ‘yes to community ownership’ and ‘no to endogenous credit money’, that would be akin to rocking the boat. My response would be, without appropriate ideology, CPC members would become a class unto itself and would not be able to keep its mass base intact over the next 50 years. As a result, corruption, manipulation, nepotism and irresponsible behaviour would increase dramatically leading to loss of public support. Thereafter, it would be just a matter of time that, CPC would be challenged by a political entity (created-aided-abated by the Zionist-capitalist world order). Whether China sets up a base in Mars, in my opinion, is less important than whether China implement the crucial aspects of the stage 1 socialism.
3) Inquisitive readers may come forward with a very practical question – what would happen to people and society in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Well, I would like to keep them separate as part of the “one country two systems” policy. It would be better for everybody if the regions of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are kept outside of this proposed program of final aspects of the stage 1 socialism in China. Let free entrepreneurship operate in these places, including operation of a business enterprise with even 100% private ownership (if the existing laws of those quasi-states permit). After all, those regions didn’t go through the transformation brought out by the Chinese Revolution.
4) Yet another group of informed readers might like to ask if the CPC has the organizational strength, leadership with ideological bent of mind, and all sorts of resources required to implement such an ambitious program. The question of whether the CPC can lead, whether the CPC can prepare a blueprint, and whether the CPC leadership can mobilize resources required for such a mammoth transformation is, actually, the most important issue for eventual success or failure. If a serious reader scans through the 100-year history of the CPC, he/she can come to a conclusion that the party was not built in a day – over the 100 year period, the Chinese leaders kept no stone unturned to keep the socialist dream alive. Extreme hard work by the leaders and members of all factions strengthened the CPC. Hence, in my opinion, the CPC would be able to register a complete success.
There are couple of key suggestions for strengthening the organization to prepare itself better for any eventuality, like: (a) expand membership strength to 140 million (equivalent to 10% of population), new recruits should cover all regions and at least 80% should come from proletariat and petit bourgeois family background; (b) vigorous training sessions for all party members through class-room and practical training, training should be imparted at least once in every 5 years; (c) while 80 years age should be maximum allowable age for a member in the party, average age should be lowered, so that members are physically fit to perform in difficult circumstances.
Coming back to the elders’ discussion in Heaven. China has achieved wonderful all-round progress towards building of social capital in the country. Now, to complete the first stage of socialism, China needs to shift the gear to adopt the cycle: Ecosystem → Economic Base → Community → Ecosystem.
It is time for the CPC to undertake the next journey on the socialist road with careful planning and implementation of the milestones. Couple of afterthoughts:
1. Two most crucial objectives for the CPC – socialist transformation and Taiwan reunification – should be undertaken simultaneously, for any attempt to plan those two objectives at staggered timeline may result in disappointment and stagnation. China (and Taiwan) can continue their journey towards more economic prosperity (with considerable inequality) even without achieving socialist transformation objectives, but the main issue refuses to go away – what happens when the Zionist-capitalists in China organize themselves to seize the political power (as they did in Soviet Union)? So, it is not a question of making a decision so that the elders like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao would be delighted in heaven, it’s a question of life and death for socialism, which the CPC would have to confront, most probably before the centenary of PRC appears on the horizon.
2. The CPC Politbureau should own the entire initiative and meticulously prepare two options (plan A and plan B) on detail roadmap containing high-level tasks, sub-tasks, task-owners, task-locations, resource requirement, and timelines to achieve the objectives between 2026 CE and 2030 CE. It is imperative that pre-requisites for and implications of each task pertaining to each of the two plans are deliberated upon in detail before a plan is approved for implementation. Politbureau may involve all members of the Central Committee in thorough discussions on the final aspects of the stage 1 socialism in China and 2 optional plans, and if required, modify the plans with inputs from these two very important groups.
3. For a trouble-free implementation, the CPC should maintain the same senior level team, hence the CPC and the National People’s Congress should re-elect Xi Jinping as President and Li Keqiang as Premier in March 2023 for next 10 years circumventing the existing party constitution, as a special gesture. President, Premier, and all other Politbureau members should visit the building at Shanghai’s French Concession and Jiaxing site that hosted the party’s founding congress in 1921, and reiterate the commitment to maintain the original aspiration of the founding members and continue the journey towards socialism.
4. In this article, I haven’t touched upon the geopolitical and geo-economic themes that permeate the overall architecture within which the Zionist-capitalist world order has been operating since the dawn of 20th century. Since that invariably includes the Chinese state and its people, the existing fabric of geopolitics and geo-economics would certainly get squeezed to some extent with the proposed implementation of the final aspects of stage 1 socialism in China. The surest way for China to confidently face any unforeseen turmoil outside its border is to maintain an unwavering deep strategic partnership with Russia through thick and thin, as we notice currently.
5. Would an auspicious moment arrive in 2031 when people across the world come to know that the stage 1 socialism fully arrived in China? I am one of them who are convinced that, the CPC has the resources, analytical ability, and organizational wherewithal to do it. If it really happens, there would be a tremendous wave of optimism about the possibility of a society based on truth-justice-equality-morality across the poor sections of the society around the world; the Marxist socialist dream that went sour with the dissolution of the USSR, would get a fresh lease of life!
Straight-Bat is an Engineer by profession, currently pursuing higher study in Economics. A keen observer of global affairs, Straight-Bat enjoys being an analyst of history, politics, economy, and geopolitics.
One of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site, Straight-Bat finds this website as a capstone entity that is dedicated to focus on truth and justice in public life across the world.
With a capitalistic society, central bankers cause fiat money to flow only to the top, that is to the aristocratic capitalists. And the money rarely trickles down to the middle class.
What is needed is the free flow of money to be loaned interest free to the middle class, which in turn will create jobs for the people at the bottom of the ladder. This in turn will create prosperity. That’s what China did when it lent money to the farmers. In general, such a system will create productivity free of cost (interest) and will cause the economy to balloon, especially as the middle class is the driving force in any economy.
To conclude, the problem in every capitalistic society is with the way the money flows.
“the problem in every capitalistic society is with the way the money flows” >>
True. Not only in every advanced capitalist country, but in so-called developing countries also, money flow is the single biggest problem. As i pointed out it is the ‘endogenous money’ which is the most significant culprit in the banking and finance sector. i don’t expect any capitalist country to run otherwise because zionist-capitalist concept itself is making money from the thin air, but i sincerely wish all developing countries to stop endogenously created credit money – it ruins national economy. China has a very serious problem of bad debt – without any doubt whatsoever, it can be stated that at least 80% of such bad debt problem is due to endogenously created money in nexus between so-called (capitalist) businessmen and the bank management.
I very impressed with your summation of the theory of socialism in academic China, but I can tell that you have not lived in the country and experience its realities. China is by far the most capitalistic country that I have ever lived in. There is very little government regulation of businesses (just research food scandals/ formula milk), no public healthcare (you have to pay before receiving medical care), public education is also fee-based with some scholarships given to high-achievers (most scholarships go to foreign nationals to increase the ‘prestige’ of the school), and the suppression of workers protests for better wages and working conditions. Finally, culturally, everyone is obsessed with money and see money as a means of obtaining power and protection for their family.
The Chinese are very practical and know the difference between empty ideology and the reality of feeding your family. I found China to be the same as the US where most people are in survival mode because they lack economic stability. In many ways I found the US more socialist with its health services, food stamps, free public parks, etc.
In my opinion, China made its money the same way the US has with its one party system. The government only regulates ideology and cares only for it’s own rich. China is essentially the U.S. in the 1950s with its massive public works and infrastructure projects. I am curious to know your thoughts on the housing bubble in China and their 90 year lease policy of property ‘ownership’.
Your conclusions, as presented, are wrong because they are based solely on theory. I invite you to live in China for a couple of years (it is very easy to get work as an ESL teacher) to better understand the realities of life in capitalist China.
” There is very little government regulation of businesses (just research food scandals/ formula milk), no public healthcare (you have to pay before receiving medical care), public education is also fee-based …” >>
If you carefully read section 3, you will find that the list of issues mentioned by you have been identified in this article – not as you are listing, but spread under different headings. Overall I agree with your point. In fact, such disturbing social realities happened because theory/ideology have been put into the background after Mao era. (Mao made mistakes in governance, doesn’t mean at all that his main teaching of ideology to be kept alive under any circumstances, is wrong).
“I am curious to know your thoughts on the housing bubble in China and their 90 year lease policy of property ‘ownership’.”
Housing bubble is the final result of ‘endogenous credit money’. In every country the banking system is corrupt because of endogenous money – China is no exception. Chinese government has to take necessary actions (as i noted in ‘Action point 2’) to get rid of future bubbles. Leased property is a welcome step – ‘Action point 1’, as I proposed here, is a much larger and more complex version of the property asset transfer by the Chinese government to the people.
“Your conclusions, as presented, are wrong because they are based solely on theory.” >>
On the contrary, I firmly believe, that Almighty is firmly behind the theory of equitable society proposed by Marxist socialism – Creator can’t accept discrimination among different entities in the creation. Today or tomorrow the Chinese state and the party will definitely put the theory in practice.
Thank you for the reply and I stand corrected. Please forgive me, I was wrong to judge hastily. I am no economist and to be honest I got lost in a lot of the details. I greatly agree with your action points and believe that we should have a more equitable system. But I would look to Bhutan or the Byzantine Empire for better economical models. Philosophical I find Communism and Capitalism to have the same materialist assumptions of humanity and both in practice rely upon power and coercion. They are, as Fr. Seraphim Rose put it, two sides of the same coin. Both are utopians or rather dystopians. Ideals centered on a fake secular humanity. The societal ideal is the monastery or the self-sacrificing family center on God and the Church. Communism nor Capitalism can complete human society. And China, which mixes both, has found success with cheap labor, strong government, and mostly cohesive society. South Korea and Japan prior to WW2 are other examples of quick rises with similar environments and results. If the goal is quick gains, then the post Mao way works. If the goal is not economic, then Bhutan would be a better case study.
It is true that communism (socialism is the generic nomenclature) is built on the theory of ‘historical materialism’ which doesn’t give importance to ideas as the building block of civilization, but identify materialistic world as the arena of social struggle. Let me share with you my own standpoint – I’m personally deeply spiritual person who has short experience of voluntary living in monastery as well as some exposure to religious scriptures etc. At the same time, i know with 100% certainty that, 98% of the people go to places of worship like church, mosque, temple etc. with his/her pray to God to achieve something that is related to MATERIALISTIC WORLD. 2% like you and me would seek spirituality or nirvana. Hence, in my opinion, socialism is perfectly okay for the society that can address the materialistic necessities of common people.
Marx or Engels were masters of political economy, they never asked their followers to abstain from spirituality, if they feel so !!!
“I would look to Bhutan or the Byzantine Empire for better economical models” >>
Bhutan being completely insignificant country in terms of landmass or population, it can’t be model that can be applied somewhere else. Byzantine empire is definitely a significant political entity, but medieval era economy was primarily built on agriculture and artisanship – modern era after industrial revolution, is a different game altogether that makes Byzantine inappropriate model for analysis.
As usual, Straight-bat provides comprehensive, holistic report that should be directed to government agencies, scholars and specialists worldwide. Top work!
Thank you for the kind words.
Frankly speaking, I wish that this report is further analyzed in more detail, at least, by a suitable agency of the Chinese government, because this proposition is for their economy (of course, from an ideological perspective)!
Other developing countries can also utilise the core concepts to their benefits.
So much info to digest that i must reread a few times b4 i understand.
I cant imagine how much work it took to write this, thank you.
Thank you for the appreciation.
True, the article is lengthy compared to most other articles written from a journalist’s point of view, but it is much more concise compared to voluminous books written by the academicians. And, I agree that you have to spend some time to fully understand this mix of theory and real economy (in the context of China) .
Wishing you all the best.
Such an amazing article well beyond my pay rate. Thank you. However, although I am a socialist in the best meaning of the word (free health care, education, affordable housing and strategic state enterprises) I cannot take Marx and Engels or Lenin or mad dog Trotsky seriously as they failed to step out of the capitalist cliches established by their imperialist counterparts (dare I say – financiers?) who pathologically hated Slavic peoples and their nation states or in the Russian case – empire, unleashing genocide upon them. While some wealth redistribution was desperately needed, what Orthodox Russians got was a blood-letting of biblical proportions.
However, Chinese flavour of communism helped the Chinese achieve emancipation from their Western and Japanese colonial masters and quislings. On that and the awesome results of lifting hundreds of millions of the Chinese from abject poverty I congratulate them. The other day the Chinese launched three men to the Chinese-built orbital station after the Americans had refused China access to the ISS. What a leap! The technology they used was improved Soviet technology, another socialist country. That tells us what can be achieved by people.
Thank you for your kind words.
“Chinese flavour of communism helped the Chinese achieve emancipation from their Western and Japanese colonial masters and quislings. On that and the awesome results of lifting hundreds of millions of the Chinese from abject poverty” >>
I can’t agree more.
“although I am a socialist in the best meaning of the word (free health care, education, affordable housing and strategic state enterprises) I cannot take Marx and Engels or Lenin or mad dog Trotsky seriously as they failed to step out of the capitalist cliches established by their imperialist counterparts (dare I say – financiers?) who pathologically hated Slavic peoples” >>
Marx, Engels, and Lenin were the most humanitarian revolutionaries of all times ! After reading their writings and speeches I never found that they were anti-Slavic. Nor the blame that these 3 were stooges of financer-imperialists … In fact, if i were to accept your logic then the definition of imperialism has to be rewritten! Lenin, of course, took loan from German bankers for carrying out political activities in 1917 – the loan was repaid, and most the Russian empire was rebuilt by 1923 when Lenin died. Since you have a socialist bent of mind, I would like to request you to read the historical and economic background of socialism and Marxist socialism. Contrary to your views, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao were really intellectuals of highest order who could see through the extremely vulgar Zionist-capitalism plaguing the world community!
Your point has relevance only to Trotsky – yes, a zionist to the core, Trotsky was implanted into Russian Menshevik party (by the Zionist-capitalist clique, specifically the banking oligarchy) who shifted to Bolshevik party with a sole aim of capturing the party by killing Lenin (by chance Lenin survived the attempt on his life around 1918). Trotsky and 3/4 other members of his faction dedicated their life to destroy the Russian revolution from inside and destroy orthodox church and slavic people … It was an extremely unfortunate part of the Bolshevik history.
Thank you for your reply. Which titles do you recommend I read?
I would suggest a process of study, which I follow. You may have to put substantial time and efforts:
1. To know the historical background, read
(a) any standard book of medieval Europe and modern Europe that are taught in university.
(b) Also read any standard history book on modern World.
(c) Then, read history of world wars written by Nikolai Starikov:
2. To know the economic background, read any basic economics book.
3. Thereafter you have to go through the economic thoughts of Marxist socialism… Some titles I would like to suggest is
(a) Karl Marx – The Capital … either go through 4 volumes written by Marx, or go through abridged version at:
(b) Engels – Synopsis of Capital ….at:
(c) Emile Burns – What Is Marxism …at:
(d) Lenin – Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism … at:
4. Thereafter you have to go through the political thoughts of Marxist socialism developed by Lenin:
(b) Lenin – The State and Revolution … at:
Actually, this is a quite long process, and one has to devote time over the years to read, know, and understand the basis of Marxist socialism, development of which took hundreds of year after Marx’s death. There are hundreds of political thinkers, economists, philosophers who added valuable contribution to Marxist socialism. One need not go through those – but few books are absolutely basic, as i noted above.
I think some of the left may be confused by the Chinese having the word Communist in the name of the ruling party. In reality China is a fascist state.
Fascism borrowed the concept of the disciplined Leninist Party but repurposed it for conservative ends and in support of traditional hierarchies. While the Leninist Party was intended to represent the working class and abolish private ownership, Fascism took the disciplined party and used it to create national unity behind a single leader; private property and the exploitation of workers was permitted as long as it was directed towards national goals. This is the same as how China uses a Leninist Party within a capitalist system, but infiltrates private companies with Communist Party cells who ensure they align with national goals. They also give support to “National Champions” – the Nazis threw the weight of the state behind companies like Volkswagan and BMW, just as the CCP throws support behind Huawei and Tencent.
A good question would be, how does it NOT resemble fascism? What would they have to change to be a more classic example of a fascist state?
Take a look at what they’re doing to the Uighurs. The US, for all its faults, has never done anything remotely similar.
US has done worse by literally wiping out the whole continent of native population
Exactly, it is the USA that is guilty of genocide against its indigenous population, not China. Washington has also killed tens of millions of people overseas with its numerous wars and coups. China and Russia have never done anything like that. These Anglosphere “humanitarians” and “human rights experts” that endlessly bash countries like China are nothing more than Neocon propagandists.
No, China is not a fascist state. You need a little bit of training but oh my heavens, where to start. You need to take time.
What are they doing to the Uyghurs? You will find a major propaganda campaign. But, of course, this nonsense is hard to debunk because it is equal to the ‘weapons of mass destruction lies.
I suggest if you are serious, take some time with Daniel Dumbrill — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32huiOc9ruo
Thanks, amarynth. You have provided the link to listen to Daniel Dumbrill (who exposed how the Zionist-capitalists mobilize Uighur youth for terrorism against the Chinese people and state). Actually, the Zionist-capitalist world order has been using few of the Turkic communities to destabilize Russia and China for past 3 decades!
So, in your opinion, “China is a fascist state”, and the Chinese Communist Party is a fascist party ?!
There are two sides of your proposition: EITHER (a) you are blowing the same old Zionist-capitalist trumpet of ‘communist leaders and party are other side of the same fascist coin’ which was used against Stalin and Soviet Communist Party, and now being used against the Chinese Communist Party, and would be used against any communist party that rise into prominence in future, OR (b) you are confused about the realities that one can see (like, capitalist-owned businesses are supported by Chinese communists, private property is allowed in China etc.) and can’t corelate these facts with theory of socialism.
If it is (a), then i have nothing to say except that such nonsense would not fool the Chinese communists.
If it is (b), then i would request you to read the Chinese communist party background to understand why such things are happening.
Finally, genocide and mass murder that took place under the aristocrats/ leaders of west Europe do not have any parallel in history – south america, north america, africa, australia … everywhere hundreds of communities were wiped out by those scums.
I can tell this guy has never been to China. There is only one rule in China: make money.
The USA is far closer to being a communist society than China is.
Well, the 1.3 billion free-marketeers do enjoy to make some cash; the remaining 100 million of the CPC enjoy the benefits of “socialism”, as any self-respecting nomenclatura is expected to do..
The US has been Fascist since 1981, but the english-language media haven’t bothered telling its citizens yet; maybe later..
and what of the super surveillance system that places cameras and snooping electronics in every corner of the country? I doubt very much socialism as expressed in China today would stand a chance if it wasn’t for this kind of massive electronic surveillance and it is only growing more and more insidious really.
In Genesis 4:7 we read:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
What was commanded for us to master ourselves is today becoming one in which the state acting like god doing it through control of ones conscience and bread.
Legislated morality is a governments wet dream whether under monarchy, capitalism,or socialism.
Britain, in particular London, has a reputation of having the most CCTV cameras on the planet, per capita. Does this then imply malevolent, authoritarian , totalitarian control ?
I do not fear it…but rather welcome it, as it does help to suppress crime…
Britain has socialist and capitalist elements of varying degrees and the use of surveillance has no direct influence on the proportion of socialism and capitalism employed….but it certainly helps to maintain the status-quo of the system…which is generally a peaceful one, as long as the population does not riot….
A social experiment? I live in a small town in Canada where there are no surveillance cameras on the streets. Nor were there any at my place of work until a few weeks ago. I decide to live as though I lived under a watchful eye to see how it would change my behavior. I go about my daily activities thinking I’m being watched by the powers that be and having my face recorded jay walking and such everywhere. I go to work and go about my daily routine ever suspect of being watched continually and recorded. Cameras at my place of work are only outside at entrances and parking lots. Until that is lo and behold some employee or employees decided to steal someones else food from fridge and robbed the freezer of 4 cases of bacon. Next to that we had some things go down in washrooms. Company bosses had enough and so cameras went up in the lunchroom and hallways and now everyone is under surveillance.
My question is why did this person or people do these things? Money of course because for some the pay was inadequate or a perceived ripoff and paying rent @ almost 2000. a month is the loss ones entire check?
Tell me Straight -Bat how would you address such things. In China thieves and the disobedient are sent to hard labour prisons yes? Fear is a great motivator for law and China put it to good use and is putting it to good use. I’d like to know how much love do the Chinese have for their country really? That’s the measure that counts ultimately for all of us.
Thanks for raising serious questions in 2 posts. Allow me to respond in one post.
” I doubt very much socialism as expressed in China today would stand a chance if it wasn’t for this kind of massive electronic surveillance and it is only growing more and more insidious really” >>
You mentioned China having “super surveillance system” in the post#1. Then you mentioned your experience in Canada as “Company bosses had enough and so cameras went up in the lunchroom and hallways and now everyone is under surveillance”. It shows that there is nothing about socialism or capitalism in surveillance system getting installed in public places. Actually there are many people who habitually don’t follow public rules, there are people who steal items even if they don’t need it (they don’t accept that they stole!), and then there are people who steal something that they can’t buy from their petty income. Due to all these people, as a whole the society/community earn a bad name, and businessmen install surveillance system in their facility and government install surveillance system in public places. While i agree that, morality can’t be fully legalised, what would be the other option against such unscrupulous citizens ? In China the concept of ‘shaming’ also exists.
“My question is why did this person or people do these things? Money of course because for some the pay was inadequate or a perceived ripoff ” >>
Exactly. This is the main reason that, I always suggest socialism is the only way forward. With a full-fledged socialist system, poverty won’t be there, so the necessity to steal something really would NOT appear (Habitual thieves would be there, anyway.). You asked me how would I address such things. Well, if you read this article carefully enough, you would come across the 4 action points I suggested for China government to think and implement. Interestingly, the old system of Soviet Union had better parameters in terms of equality compared to China (because, China used the capitalist system of economy for about 40 years, and now they need to move along the socialist economy to build a socialist society).
“I’d like to know how much love do the Chinese have for their country really?” >>
Well, I feel, average Chinese thinks more about his/her country than any other Asian or European country.
To this Stright-Bat I can only reply have you seen the works of Stefan Verstappen? A man who has intimate knowledge of China and the exploitation of her people. Watch this amazing video and I doubt very much these people care or love what the authorities did to them for their socialist utopian dreams? Suicide prevention nets? etc etc
Everything begins with exploitation, everything. The only place it doesn’t is with the only socialism that works found in the book of Acts chapter 4:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
A family is a family no matter how big a nation is.
The human race we all have it within ourselves to bring about a utopian society. We don’t need lawyers and politicians and wealthy business men to do it for us.
Where electronic surveillance is taking us though is the real danger.
The prospect of China becoming a genuinely socialist society in the near future to me seem unlikely, if we understand socialism to mean socialized (socially owned) means of production & distribution. This would require more than just the state gradually assuming ownership over all privately or part-privately owned enterprise – for an economy as vast & complex as China’s is, the only way from my perspective they could go socialist is to begin operating on a guild-cooperative model. This would mean that large firms would assume state ownership & over time some form of corporate guild would distribute both share holdings & decision making power within the corporation among gild members – but at the opposite end of the spectrum, say high street bakeries or pizza parlours or barbers shops, these outlets would come to be owned & controlled by trades guilds, as existed in medieval Europe & elsewhere (in China as well). Socializing capital would not necessarily be that great a transformation as it would seem, for it would begin with the banking system, the real problem lies in the nature of China’s trading relations & system of exports. Private capital has always gravitated around international trade, that is, in reality how “capitalism” as a system came to be, the partnership between private finance/banking, & foreign traders/merchants via insurance & advance credit/loans & such. The state’s role was in granting licences, charters, which became corporate charters i.e. the East India Company. The development of this partnership & its intrinsic role within the colonial system is what gave the fuel to the growth of private finance, merchant bankers & traders to gain power over the traditional nobility & feudal class. In the terminology of academic economics & Marxist analysis, as capital became increasingly mobile, it overwhelmed the influence of fixed immobile capital, i.e. landed estates. So the nature of capital accumulation is really key, which is what the author seems to be saying if I understood him correctly, what will be the main sources of capital accumulation in the future? Especially when considering developments such as robotics, automated manufacturing, & what is called A.I. which means in reality automated computer programmes (programmes written with the function to write other programmes & operate autonomously). In Marxist analysis, capital was controlled by the ability of the capitalist to control the means of production, thereby exploiting labour whose work was the real source of “added value” i.e. capital accumulation. For socialism to come in to practise, one needs to imagine what will be the work of the future, where will people be working, & how best is that work organised to enable the worker to control their own means of production? I would return to the model of what was once called guild socialism, I think it is the only socialism that is possible, feasible, & desirable. State nationalization has been what socialism & communism has amounted to thus far, but this is hardly what socialism was envisaged to be – the whole point is to end wage slavery & the exploitation of working people, that is the mass of humanity. Is China truly committed to this? I’m not sure, I suspect that they probably are, in their own way, but they have a long long way to go.
Thank you for a exceptionally thought-provoking response. I agree with most of your points, hence my response would be only related to your stand points with which i differ categorically:
“for an economy as vast & complex as China’s is, the only way from my perspective they could go socialist is to
begin operating on a guild-cooperative model.”
Guild-cooperative model of socialism was developed in England during first quarter of the 20th century with two
key aspects (a) the industrial units would be controlled by the guilds built by the workers, and (b) ownership will
remain with the state which may be extended to the guild members. In China, the current situation involves (a) the industrial units are controlled by the management, and (b) ownership is with the state (for state owned enterprises) and private citizens (for private owned enterprises). In my opinion, OWNERSHIP is the most important aspect of any economic system, and I consider ‘state-ownership’ as a special form of capitalism (nowadays called as state capitalism) that places the state as the agency for appropriating the surplus value i.e. profit (whether or not the state utilise that profit for the common people and the community is another question). Also, guild socialism for industry can’t take into account the 21st century economy where agriculture,
industry, and services all three are very advanced sectors in their own rights. Thus i’m not in favour of guild socialism, but would prefer community ownership of all enterprises.
“Socializing capital would not necessarily be that great a transformation as it would seem, for it would begin with the banking system” >>
True, socializing capital would begin with the banking sector, but that doesn’t undermine the necessity of taking
actions for introducing community ownership of all enterprises. Frankly speaking, i find community ownership as the ‘missing link’ of all socialist experiments done till date! Without all people becoming owner of the ‘capital’ (without becoming capitalists) they won’t feel themselves as the stakeholders in the economic performance of their own country.
“what will be the main sources of capital accumulation in the future?”
Since my entire write-up is against capital accumulation (that prompted me to propose a community ownership of capital thereby diluting the accumulation process itself), i would take your point from an all-together different perspective – in my opinion, social capital will continue to be built in China in rapid pace, whether in agriculture (yes, most of the academia and media miss this area), in mining (rare earth materials), in industry 4.0 (which include all those ultra-modern things like AI, IoT, Robotics etc.), in services (like healthcare, communication, transportation etc.) .
“For socialism to come in to practise, one needs to imagine what will be the work of the future, where will people be working, & how best is that work organised to enable the worker to control their own means of production? I would return to the model of what was once called guild socialism”
As I mentioned in the first point, i don’t think guild socialism is appropriate. Echoing your statement that “the whole point is to end wage slavery & the exploitation of working people” i would like the way to pass through the community ownership (as a method of ownership of capital), and a ‘workers’ council’ (that works along with the management for better coordination of enterprise activities). In modern economy, in my opinion, management has an important place (which would be undermined if guild socialism is well-established).
I enjoyed very much responding to your points….
What about Yugoslavia community ownership and worker self-management of companies?
Thanks for raising this point. IMHO, Yugoslavian economic model is a subject that was never discussed widely, though it deserved wide attention among the post-WW II socialist economies. Yugoslavia slowly implemented two concepts – ‘self-management of companies’ as you mentioned, and ‘market’ for consumer goods (but no market for factors of production). The ‘community ownership’ concept of Yugoslavia was just like that of Soviet Union – ‘state ownership’; hence all assets were owned by the state.
In this article, I wanted to propose that a true ‘community ownership’ is NOT state ownership (which may give rise to state capitalism) – the people must own the enterprises legally (along with the share of surplus). And self-management by workers is all about control-coordination-management of the enterprise, but it’s not about the ownership.
I’m not sure. After the collapse of Yugoslavia, the capital in community ownership first had to be nationalized by the state, and only then could it be privatized – the notorious “conversion and privatization”.
Straight-Bat old friend,
are you an intellectual class INSIDE china? or are you a commenter outside china?
you have keen interest in deep china stuff. may I ask why?
is it because china is last man standing thus last defender of what social system you like to see roll out worldwide? or your ‘hatred’ for the un•scru•pu•lous zios? or smth else?
you maybe interested (if you havent got to it)
White paper: China’s political party system is a unique political creation
… and there is a FULL text for your caliber of reading
anyhow its a good reading
… and yes, I am quite sure CCP notice your sharings here :)
really good to see you again ;)
Thanks for sending the links of further literature on Chinese politics. No, I’m an outsider who is peeping through the Chinese window. :)
Russia and China are the leaders of the ‘resistance camp’. Hence it is imperative that, both of them remain strong internally – that’s my primary interest to study deeply about both of them.
Its a long time to find your message. Probably you are still active as a commenter, but I participate rarely.
if we fast forward, if we survive W3, I assure you friend, we will see RC Will be the Last Couple Standing! (and china being the clingy gf so say DO – which I understand the russian pride but I also agree, rus is the fatherland and chi the motherland) and I have a sneaky suspicion Rus may come full back into Stalinism?!
There are lots and lots of things of deep china stuff I wish I can discuss w you…
but I am also aware your time is precious :)
so friend anytime you pop in next, maybe at the cafe, we can talk about the madate of heaven?
Just one thing I disagree – and I warn current and all future CCP to heed –
CCP china Must Never invade Taiwan. Period.
I dont care whatever, not even half a footprint on taiwan from any of the 3 letter agency of CCP china (officially). Period.
CPP can surround the entire island to no end w her ships or whatever to prevent anything in and anything out, remote control or whatever, but Must Never invade taiwan. Period!
question for me is, what happens after the next 100yr plan? that is yr 200-300 yr of CCP?!
in china, they are worried about the 00 gen – they welcome the out of box unlinmited exploration/imagination and yet they still want to maximise control for stability of china society and chinese thousand yrs traditions and cultures.
btw did you know that china is Not one political party? I just found that out at cgtn recently. It appears to be one party as it, the major party is like 90% and the other 10% is split into another 6-7 party, from memory. Interesting (if one projects forward into next 200-300 yrs)
Thanks for your time :)
Really good reading and I made hardcopy for this one – it is that good!
p/s ‘resistance camp’, may I suggest is a white-filtered observation, in the yellow-eyes, its ‘Come Back Renaissance Civilisation’ in Confucius-Marxist-flavour
the Deep State won’t allow RC to grow as a natural process in partnership with Eurasian countries especially Germany, hence they are inviting trouble in the Black Sea. There is no question about whether RC will survive WW3 – RC would be there anyway post-WW3, question is whether the pygmies of Europe would still be around!
On the “mandate of heaven”, if you have any interesting stuff, you can post here now… We can surely discuss. About Taiwan, i understand your point. IMHO, getting Taiwan back into Chinese middle kingdom would happen today or tomorrow, for which the Communist party leaders will try their level best to avoid ‘hot war’. But will the zio-fascist global clique allow a peaceful reunion ???
CPC has a very strong organisational base that should take it through the coming 100 years … But with too much inequality and a rising bourgeois class, CPC may have to encounter upstart political force that would be formed all of a sudden (similar to Soviet Union). Hence i suggested community ownership in the economy.
The concept of a democratic nationalist socialist front in China has historical roots… The Comintern (guided by Stalin) wanted CPC to form such a front where the Kuomintang (KMT) was to be the senior member. Thereafter KMT tried to wipe out CPC around 1927, CPC regrouped after the long march, and finally after WW2 was over in 1945 CPC again pushed for the ‘old’ concept of a front to form a government … 6 – 8 parties came along except KMT who started war – that war ended in 1949 in defeat of KMT which moved to Taiwan.
Russia coming back to socialism can’t be ruled out … But that won’t be Stalinism … IMHO, Stalin really didn’t do anything which was ideologically a new thing breaking from the Leninist principle – poor man had to fight against the Trotskyite Zionism for 16 years, Nazi aggression for 5 years leaving very less time for doing anything which could be defined as ‘Stalinism’. Also Stalin’s so-called repression was nothing but a paranoid reaction to Trotskyite manipulation of the party’s Jewish leadership, as a result of which the honest leaders like Bukharin had to die along with the real culprits like Trotsky-Kamenev…
I really enjoy this little convo w you, friend :)
in my book, deep state has lost and declared lost, back in 2008… the hand-over was agreed and rolled out… but you guess it too, our worthy opponent the zios, then decide to do the sneaky thing, as in their DNA and past history, so we are here today… but the east made sure the future is sealed, as you agree w me.
As for the pygmies of Europe, I want to respect the readers and citizens of those country, so I am going to say – pls encourage your country leaders to talk to VVP and offer, if not beg for the best deal he is willing to extend. VVP will be your gatekeeper to the east, from now on, since some of your country leaders has decidedly declare unofficial war on china. China is not talking to USA, will china talk to EU/OTAN? As such, SCO will show up next/soon as Fully Militarized Organization (inc the space war toys) to counter OTAN and whoever else. So the zios are not that, well, as (self) advertised, neither in power nor in ‘money’.
Mandate of Heaven is a fascinating and never ending topic of discussion, as it has to be discuss w the knowledge of all chinese ancient dynasty, which unfortunately, its best to talk over a pot of good chinese tea :)
… but I will make a official point here, mandate of heaven is grant, we all know that, but it is not expansionist. To the Xi-led CCP china, they want to restore (and then exceed) the great Tang dynasty, where all countries come to china, the center of all the earth, and do business there, as oppose to the western USSA style, going out there to make their presence. The chinese way is that, they want to be so Yuge, you cannot afford not to come, not to bow down, and not to trade, w them, in their turf. They want to make you come, by your own, willingly, or unwillingly. Thats the current CCP china ‘mandate of heaven’ in Chinese-filtered definition.
The current CCP china is working hard to tackle the ‘too much inequality and a rising bourgeois class’ problem, as seen in the case of Jack Ma. Again I am sitting this one out but siding more w the CCP on this one. As far as CCP is concern, these ppl made their fortunes, w the resources and backing of the country, thus their success should be return to the country, as in children (sme to international business) paying back their parent (china). Also look at Huawei boss, he didnt ‘defect’ to the west even when his daughter is held hostage by the criminals, so each has choices, to serve the country even after they made it or ditch the country and become ‘westernized’.
My strongest urge against invading taiwan is to never allow the cain and abel ver ever to occur, which will have thousand of generations of ‘unsolvable entanglement’. Not to mention its an absolute disrespect to our common ancestor, the yellow ppl are ONE and Same. We will not commit the sin of the white ppl. We have our ancestral obligations and duties.
On after-W3 russia, I better not say too much or da Boss the Saker will surely kick my butt here! Also I am an outsider but merely sharing, that after the dust settles, russians prob will be soaked w testosterone as a nation, the victor in history page, revenge for breaking up their former country, thus Stalinism may just be a tad more popular than Leninist principle. I am not apt at all in russian detailed history I confess and could be mortally wrong :)
Its a fascinating convo w you here, Straight-Bat
I heard you are doing some studies. I hope they all go well for you.
There are plenty of serious thinker here, like yourself, though they are lurking behind. If you call for them, they may show up :) esp now, they read your very serious piece again – as I said, to dear A, waters flow are different level :)
all the best to you…
… and stay safe stay alive!
Thank you so much for your warm wishes, my friend ! Yes, my studies are going well, and you can see the output in The Saker :)) Coming to the discussion points:
“in my book, deep state has lost and declared lost, back in 2008” >>
I have actually did simulation on the world geopolitical environment based on assumptions on what would be political and economic situation in China, and you may read the details from… https://thesaker.is/bridging-chinas-past-with-humanitys-future-part-3/
Now, after the NATO belligerence in the Black Sea, I am feeling that the confrontation can not be postponed anymore … A Stalinist stand of “not one step back” has to be taken by the Russian leadership. The combination of VVP and XJP is a rare phenomenon in the Eurasian landmass – last time it happened during WW-II when decisive and bold leaders like Stalin and Mao were present almost at the same time (if Stalin was not murdered he could have ruled for another 8 – 10 years). And Russia is really blessed to get such leaders like Lavrov and Shoigu – they can do wonders! In my opinion, economy remains the weakest point of Russia. Don’t know how Russian Communist Party is doing – they should create a front with Putin’s party. Capitalist economy has inherent weaknesses that can not be circumvented by ANY country other than the country that has the international currency – i.e. US Dollar. So RC need to take a call – may be within next 5 years (assuming no war before that). Also, Russia needs to ditch the zionist-capitalist system moving forward – a Marxist socialist system with market+central planning, would be far better than waiting for the ‘invisible (zionist-capitalist) hand’ of market to excel, IMHO.
“Mandate of Heaven is a fascinating and never ending topic of discussion” >>
My first love is history+political science. And, Europe + Asia used to be my top preference for study. Starting from Xia-Shang-Zhou ancient era I’ve studied upto Communist era of the ‘middle kingdom’ … :) Very very interesting reading, and I agree with your statement “the yellow people are ONE and Same”…, I can add something more to what you mentioned (a) ‘mandate of heaven’ has a very intriguing political side apart from socio-economic morality – the rulers must ensure that the commoners are happy and well off (as a corollary, when the rulers become despots, the people has a sort of ‘natural right’ to dislodge that dynasty) (b) the chinese dynasties willingly took actions so that different tribes and communities unite and form a single civilization since BCE (that’s again a very wise socio-political decision of most of the dynasties), as a result the entire people are one and same !
“The current CCP china is working hard to tackle the ‘too much inequality and a rising bourgeois class’ problem, as seen in the case of Jack Ma” >>
Frankly speaking, I don’t have enough information about this topic. But, i’m very skeptical about it. Can you imagine, a communist party like CPSU (a party which was built and led by 100% self-less leaders like Lenin and Stalin) was fully captured by zionist-capitalists? I can’t believe even now that, the entire natural resources and technically advanced manufacturing facilities of Soviet Union were just cherry picked by the capitalists (having ‘understanding’ with the party leaders) in the 1990s!! okay, Putin has stabilised the situation to an extent, but zionist-capitalists even now own the entire economy as such (except state owned enterprises) – Putin or anybody else can’t do anything about it, it’s the economic system.
What is the guarantee that the same thing won’t happen in China – deception and treachery is in the genetic built up of the zionists, so zionist-capitalist system and theory can wreck havoc anytime. I’m only trying to be logical and rational – China can’t escape an attack from them, so it has to prepare… the ONLY way is to mobilse the people (as Mao said) , that’s why i propose ‘community ownership’. existing group of capitalists won’t like it (except a few owners like Huawei), but they won’t have a choice other than accepting it ! Make common people stakeholders!! Otherwise the ‘last barrier’ may come down crashing – for the poor 90% of the humanity, the ray of hope will vanish !
Enjoyed this discussion very much … All the best to you … Stay safe!
I have been a silent reader for several months now.
I really enjoy the content of this site, even (because?) if I don’t always agree.
Big respect for this interesting read straight bat. Thank you.
I am writing from West Africa, Senegal. I am a practical ecologist and anarchist with a lot of love for community, marx and communism.
Can you explain more precisely please, what do you mean with:
Ecosystem → Economic Base → Community → Ecosystem
What is flowing here? Energy? Labour ? What do you mean with the last insertion of ecosystem – waste?
I follow you on most points you make, and I decided to make a point for the ecosystem.
In my opiniom one of the biggest problems (moral aside) of modern economics is the complete ignorance of the natural capital. Every wealth that we create is based on nature, even AI because it needs hardware.
But there is no real bookkeeping of the natural capital, we don’t even know what we have lost already.
I think peak (arable) soil is the most obvious example that everybody intuitively understands.
Your Action point 3 covers some policies for agriculture etc, but what my generation really needs, if we want to survive capitalism, is a rich natural resource base. I am talking about water, air, soil – life – the base.
I feel this century needs a physical economy rooted in an abundant nature.
(I did study some economics and read loads of books etc to quickly understand but never grasp, that economist know almost nothing about the physical economy. What material moves where, when, etc.. Not even for the money itself. I think thats one of the reasons why the 1% wants digital currency so bad. Hard to control everything if you know almost nothing.)
We do need a paradigm shift, especially in Africa. It shouldn’t be about harming planet earth less, we need to take our responsibility as co – creators of life and actively increase the capacity of our spaceship mother earth. That means continuing the humble art all life was playing here since several billons of years.
Life obviously is the base of every economic activity.
When I was doing university I originally wanted to dedicate my memoir to this theory:
A banking system based on growth of natural capital rather than on “thin air” .
On humus, living carbon or living water for example. (quite interesting that biodiversity can actually grow infinitely in a finite space..)
Wouldn’t that be a venture for the powerhouse china?
To get back to the point and become a bit more specific.
Action point 3 has to include, imho, the continuous regeneration and enhancement of the “chinese” and global ecosystem. It would be nice to make this a separate Action point 0 actually :)
I hope you could follow my train of thoughts, best whises
Some infos on a more holistic theory of value http://www.regenterprise.com/8-forms-of-capital/
A great website for fans of deep ecology
From the same Author, my favourite introduction to global ecology
Wow, I enjoyedy coming-out.
Big thn ks to the Saker, the moderators and staff and everyone involved here. This site is truly a gem.
Welcome to The Saker blog-site. We would be enriched with your inputs. Thank you for your kind words appreciating my article. i found your response as a fundamental input for that should to be incorporated in any article related to a community. Though I haven’t detailed on environmental factors in this article I did include ‘environmental sustainability’ as a parameter for socio-economic analysis mentioned in section 3.1. Thanks for sending the links.
I, pretty much agree with most of your points, hence responding to only those points where you needed some clarification or where I differ with your standpoint.
” Can you explain more precisely please, what do you mean with:
Ecosystem → Economic Base → Community → Ecosystem
What is flowing here? Energy? Labour ? What do you mean with the last insertion of ecosystem – waste?”
If you look into the article this cycle has been called (by me) as ‘a benefit accrual cycle’ – in this cycle, resource from ecosystem is mined by the (owners of) ‘economic base’ and processed into goods/services, then sold (by the ‘owners’ of the economic agencies) at profit – so a benefit gets accrued to the ‘owners’ of economic agencies … now if the community (of all people) is owner, then benefit goes to them instead of existing system where the capitalist gets the benefits because they own. Finally ‘community → Ecosystem’ means that a part of the accrued benefit should be spent for the ecosystem … in reality we spend nothing for the ecosystem. Hope, you got the point.
“In my opinion one of the biggest problems (moral aside) of modern economics is the complete ignorance of the natural capital. Every wealth that we create is based on nature, even AI because it needs hardware.”
If you study the figure 2.2, it exactly suggests that humankind takes every material from the nature! Slowly there is a tendency to acknowledge that the natural capital needs to be accounted for.
A banking system based on growth of natural capital rather than on “thin air” .
On humus, living carbon or living water for example. (quite interesting that biodiversity can actually grow infinitely in a finite space..)
This is a genuinely new concept of economy. The only problem is our economic principles are based on “extractive and expenditure basis”, hence your concept can’t be fit into the existing theory or analysis. Action point 3 has a limited agenda, so to include your suggestion, ‘continuous regeneration’ has to be a separate action point (as you suggested). Frankly speaking, I have deliberated on a special case of what you call as ‘continuous regeneration’ – China has huge landmass of semi-arid and desert regions, a lot which, perhaps, can be transformed into arable land through special regenerative efforts. But I haven’t included that topic in this article simply because it was not a ‘developed’ concept, and I didn’t have enough technical expertise to do so. May I request you to spend some time and efforts for developing a basic conceptual framework on this ? It would be a great endeavour!
Enjoyed discussing with you. Best Wishes
For it to have been an “actually existing” heaven, Rosa Luxemburg would also have needed to be at your cafeteria table. In which case, and without delay, she would have drawn her heavenly equivalent of a revolver and despatched Chiang and Owen to…well, somewhere. (Sound of applause from other heavenly diners.)
Great article. Best wishes.
“she would have drawn her heavenly equivalent of a revolver and despatched Chiang and Owen to …” >>
Enjoyed the ‘joke’ very much, and at the same time i must say, you have portrayed the biggest weakness of Rosa Luxemburg (and the German party) unwittingly – theory of ‘spontaneous revolution’ that lacked thorough preparation by a vanguard party…
Thank you so much for the warm wishes and the appreciation!
No, not unwittingly. Sadly, Rosa was a suicide waiting to happen. But she would be welcome at my dream, timeless dinner party. Other invitees would include Shakespeare, Mao, Dante, Ho Chi Minh, Germaine Greer, Mel Brooks, Catherine the Great and Jessica Lange (the most beautiful woman ever to grace this wonderful universe of ours).
So I think we agree about the need for a vanguard party. What better proof than Cuba and, more recently, the Iranian Islamic socialist revolution?
Again, best wishes. Please keep writing.
for any interested in a little more in depth study on surveillance and where AI is really taking us all a significant essay popped up here:
They already could have if they wanted to.
They are already 1.4 billion with the second biggest economy in the world, they certainly could afford it, the much poorer USSR could.