we'll have to see if the cultural differences in china lead to different outcomes than happened in america, but i'm going to make a suggestion as to what i think is likely to happen.
for a long time, america had more jobs than there were people able to do those jobs, and that allowed for a union movement to develop that won substantive rights for the american working class, allowing it to usurp levels of wealth that are supposed to be reserved for the bourgoisie - and stabilizing the system, in the process. but, capital is always seeking to undercut everything it can to maximize profit by any means possible so it couldn't deal with that, and migrated to a society that had more people than jobs, thereby allowing it to exploit the labour more effectively once again - and create higher levels of profit. if the number of jobs in china is catching up to the number of people, what effects will that have? will capitalism transform itself under the more communitarian concepts of chinese culture?
i might rather suggest that you're already starting to see capital begin to move out of china and into countries like vietnam, but that in the long run the most likely destination point is africa.
and, so the question is perhaps a little bit different - will china react to it's abandonment by capital in the same way that the west did, or will the cultural differences, including a culture of stronger state interference, lead it to react differently to this ongoing and inevitably accelerating abandonment?
also: while the term "global south" may be looked down upon nowadays, china is neither geographically nor historically a member of that demographics. china exists in the northern hemisphere; it snows in beijing. and, it's also, historically, one of the centres of global trade. there's really no context at all where a discussion of china in the global south is at all coherent.
dave
China is already anticipating that Africa will be the future for low-skilled labor, which is why they are already starting to set up companies in Africa and also building the necessary infrastructure and framework for private companies to do business with african countries. The West mostly interacts with the bourgeoisie in Africa, while China is much more focused on interacting with the working class and with the states.
China is a huge country and it has in the north a border with Russia and in the south a border with Vietnam (Australia is in the southern hemisphere, but is of course part of the conceptual west). Also the "global south" is used to describe mostly income-low countries, but also countries which fought against the imperialistic forces of the "north".
deathokoalas
well, i think there's some naivete, here. but, this is the sort of great experiment in front of us - will marx be better realized in china, or will they just self-destruct and collapse into themselves like the west did? and, will capital allow itself to be transformed in china, or can it escape the transformation and flee elsewhere?
but, china was never colonized in that sense, either. it suffered a decline, but there were never colonial governors in china the way there were in india. and the chinese are even mostly white too. so, could it be that the brandt line had a little bit of specious racism baked into itself in assigning china to the south rather than the north?
dave
We can't forget that socialist countries who fail, are usually under fierce attack by the west, either by military force and/or by economic embargos. People have been predicting the collapse of China for decades but it is growing stronger and stronger instead. And lets not forget that the capitalist countries caused the last financial crisis and if China continues to rise like this it will cause the collapse of the Dollar, similar to the colapse of the British currency in the last century. Since China is a dictatorship "of the proletariat" it has not really trouble in controlling the capitalist class and there are many strict rules for the movement of capital, but also classical ways in which capitalists establish their power. Without propaganda from corporate media, corporate think tanks and lobbyist, it is quiete difficult to cause political transformations
China was a semicolony. Hong Kong was under British rule till 1997 with a british Governor and Macau was under the rule of Portugal. Also several other territories of China were either partly controlled by other countries or the imperealists had at least a very strong influence in those regions. Chinese people might have quite white pigmented skin, but white supremacy is not a function of skin pigmentation (in the US irish and italian people weren't considered as white for a time). Asian people aren't accepted as white in the west
deathtokoalas
did you watch the video? china is the current dominant capitalist state, and the video is about what happens when capitalism inevitably collapses there. i'm not wasting my time with people that think china is a communist state, or allowing you to base arguments on the absurd idea that china is repressing capitalism. what has happened is that china has stolen capitalism from the west, but now the question is whether it can keep it from abandoning it, as well. the rest of what is in this reply is utter nonsense.
the fact that china was able to license a port and maintain sovereignty around it indicates that they were not colonized, not that they were. it's important that you don't confuse colonialism - which involves eradicating the culture and sometimes even the people of a vanquished nation - with just losing a war. china lost the opium wars, but they were not colonized as a consequence of it. and, what white supremacists imagine that whiteness is - which often involves the integration of semitic religious values that did not exist, historically, in northern europe - has little to do with the phenotypic and genotypic fact that the chinese are ethnically and culturally white.
dave
China might be a pretty "capitalistic" state, but there is of course a huge difference between China's economic system and western economic systems and describing both as simply "capitalists" isn't helpful at all. China is repressing political capitalism and attempts of companies to rival or control the state in certain areas. like they do in the West (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ant-group-to-fall-under-chinese-government-oversight-as-alibabas-jack-ma-yields-to-regulators-11618229440)
And the chinese culture has almost nothing to do with western culture and many white people actually look down on their culture
deathtokoalas
the video demonstrates very clearly that surplus value in china is extracted much more efficiently than it is in the uk. if you think that chinese attempts to regulate third-party websites are some kind of a repression of capitalism, and maximal efficiency of the extraction of surplus value isn't, then you're operating under strange, colloquial concepts of capitalism that demonstrate a poor understanding of what it actually is. further, those are essentially the same policies promoted by elizabeth warren, who considers herself a market fundamentalist, and is doing it in an attempt to increase competition. and, that's basic first year economics nowadays - markets don't reach points of equilibrium if left alone, but rather coalesce into oligopolies that need to be broken up by the state. that is not the opposite of capitalism, but the implementation of it, to anybody who hasn't drunk the pseudoscientific koolaid of hayekian libertarianism.
in david's topsy-turvy concept of economic theory, breaking up monopolies to foster competition is state interference and therefore communism - and capitalism is when the state allows those monopolies to develop by refraining from interfering in the inevitable market failure that follows from total laissez-faire approaches to "free markets". it's perfectly orwellian, in truth.
...and it suggests that david has neither read marx nor smith, let alone bothered with a first year course on the topic.
now, the british licensed ports all over europe during that period, including in gibraltar, in malta and in the crimea, and generally after winning a conflict. did the british colonize russia, spain and greece, as well? no...
the chinese lost a war and had to cede some territory for a while. that's great power competition, it's not colonization. and, they gave hong kong back - they're still in gibraltar.
i would not consider the chinese to be people of colour, and neither have europeans, historically. marco polo, for example, decided that they were white. it's actually something that developed primarily out of japanese racism towards china, and has contemporary roots in the cold war.
but, ask yourself how much chinese culture has to do with western culture the next time you see a chinese orchestra perform western classical music, or chinese students excel in western science at western universities - or, for that matter, have debates about western economics, whether it be an embrace of marxism or an application of neo-liberalism. while i agree that china has a very different historical development (china was not influenced by socrates or jesus or ceasar), and it approaches things from somewhat of a unique filter as a consequence of it, it has also fully embraced everything western in this period of pax americana - and partly because it is smart enough to see the value in doing so.
so, yes - i'm going to argue that the chinese are genetically and culturally white people that belong to the global north, and were always interpreted that way, historically. and i'll argue that suggesting otherwise is a consequence of specious racist stereotyping that came out of the japanese occupation (and were adopted by the west as a part of the cold war) and is not borne out by actual evidence.
dave
Look I am not stating that China is not a capitalist state, all I am saying is that the capitalism of the west is much worse then Chinas, the capitalism of the US fosters imperialistic wars and exploits people of the global south. Chinas economic system might not be perfect, but it's much better then the US. Can we agree on that?
THis wasn't supposed to show that China is a communist country, but that China's capitalist system is much less a laissez-fairemarket, which I think makes a huge difference and simply equatting Chinas economic system with west because both are "capitalist" doesn't allow any nuance
China tried to implement a more marxist system in the last century, but it failed. So I think that a much more graduale approach is much better for developing a socialist system. And if you want to implement a socialist/marxist system you won't be able to do it in a vaccum, so I think the approach of China to first develope itself, to build up economic capacities and to build up a trade network which spans around the whole globe, is a much smarter approach to achieving their goals. Lets not forget: the west will attack you if you try to be a socialist country, so by being a integral part of the capitalist global economy, China is protecting itself to what the West did to the Soviet Union, Cuba (total economic embargo) etc..
The theory of Marx and Smith and so on might be quiet accurate description of capitalist system, but if you can't integrate THEORY with hard geopolitical truths you are doomed to fail
deathtokoalas
i don't agree that china's capitalism is "better" than america's, at all, as though this is some kind of moral issue. that's a constant with fake left progressives nowadays - this constant moralizing that we used to associate with conservatism. but, let's put that aside and address the question, as loaded as it is. first, again, watch the video - the exploitation of the chinese worker is far greater than the exploitation of the american worker, partly because america has experienced a labour movement and china has not. the point of exporting capitalism to asia was to allow for greater exploitation of the worker, as the west had unions and asia does not. and, this is in line with marxist theory, which requires a socialization of production before socialism can develop. that is, marx would have predicted that chinese capitalism would be more vicious and more exploitative than american capitalism at this stage in development. second, the idea that china is not engaging in imperialism or triggering wars in the global south is simply not upheld by the evidence. the geopolitics of africa is a complicated, difficult topic, but trust me - china is a vicious imperialist actor in that region. china is also engaging in colonialism in south america, and is very openly interfering in the political system there, with the general aim of extracting resources with as minimal compensation as is possible. some countries in south america are actually even currently experiencing indigenous revolts against chinese exploitation under the false guise of "socialism".
in regards to your second third reply, the way i'm going to interpret it is to point out that i agree that the whole peasant revolution thing pushed by mao is incoherent within a marxist framework, which requires that capitalism precede socialism in the development of history. marxists refer to this theory as "historical materialism", and while it is certainly primarily pseudoscience, it does have that insight going for it: every attempt to skip the capitalist phase has led to failure, and i actually think it's easy enough to understand why. so, what happened in china after mao was the realization that, no, you really can't jump from a feudal society that was absolutely demolished in the second world war to fully automated luxury communism - you have to go through the hard parts in between, which means allowing for foreign capital to build industry, and a labour movement to develop and seize control. but, in the process, what is basically a fascist political party has taken hold of power in the country, and they're likely to stamp out any kind of possible labour movement with a force that is far greater than america ever did. remember tinanenman square, after all. there were blood baths in the early years of labour organizing in america, it is true, but restraint always won in the end, and all indications suggest that the chinese will show no such restraint, as they have no cultural tradition of things like rights or democracy. you're also confusing the west for capitalism, in your statements - you claim the west will attack you for being socialist, but it is in truth capital that will stamp out all dissent. and, china is the top dog of capitalism now, not the west. dust off the orwell, dave - you might need it.
dave
There are of course bad elements in capitalism, but to neglect its potential for development is totally wrong, even Marx knew that capitalism is very effective in creating higher living standards for people (at least a more Keynesian approach). Do chinese people get paid a lower wage and have worse working conditions then people from the West: Yes, of course they do. But the only thing people from poorer countries can offer is to work for less and the alternative to that letting you "exploit" yourself is greater poverty. While the chinese workers were "exploited", China experienced the largest reduction of poverty ever in human history. The living standards in China skyrocketed and to simply call this "a more vicious exploitation" has nothing to do with practical reality. Marx wrote his work focused on countries which are already developed, poorer countries will have of course much harder obstacles in achieving a transformation of their industries. You are way to focused on some theory, but it is extremely important to also analyze not only what is written in some books, but to look that the real, practical living conditions of people.
And about your point on imperialism: sorry I can't really just trust you there and I don't know what "evidence" you are seeing. China is actually much more cooperative with countries from the global south. Especially in Africa China is accepting what african countries have asked for a long time: economic interactions should be about trade and not about (conditional) aid. Furthermore, China is helping many countries to go higher up in the value chain which will have a huge effect
I think I see now where one of our main disagreements lies. You equate capitalism with imperialism and as soon you are a large capitalist country you automaticly turn into a imperialist power, but I totally disagree on that. Imperialism is caused by a burgeoisie which mostly controls the country and uses the state to further their business interest by exploting and subjugatting other countries (i.e. West India Company, United Fruit Company, Oil industry, military-industrial complex etc.). I don't equate the West with capitalism, I equate it with imperalistic capitalism, and it lis really laughable that you describe it as a system with a cultural tradition of rights and democracy. This tradition is reserved at the most maybe for white people, lets dont forget that the west almost colonized the whole world, the US is still oppresing its black population and used the war on drugs to target black people and political opponents (
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html) and caused almost 1 million civillian deaths during their illegal war on Iraq (not to mention all the war crimes they commited and other countries they attacked). The West is trying to create colour revolutions all around the world and the US alone tried to toppeld more then 70 governments ( some even elected) and is actively trying to do this also in China (in Xinjiang, Tibet and everywhere it cans, here a admission from a US general about heir goals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIAXqkdWzU)
deathtokoalas
listen, david, i'm sorry, but i don't get the impression that you know what you're talking about, and i wonder if you're even working for the chinese government - which does actually pay people to do what you're doing. so, i'm going to extrapolate on a few basic points and try to disengage with this.
- i agree that china has come a long way since it hit rock bottom in world war two, but it kind of had nowhere to go but up. there are very few destruction events in history that compare with what happened in china between 1930-1950 - maybe the late bronze age collapse, and the mongol invasion are precedents, but there aren't many. so, there's been a fair amount written about the idea of technological determinism in china's post-wwII recovery, which i'm stating without irony: at some point of underdevelopment or broad social collapse due to famine and war, the system used to develop the industrial capacity doesn't matter as much as the introduction of new technology and the introduction of peace does. so, sure: give china credit for pulling itself up by it's own bootstraps, and doing it relatively fast. but, you're getting dubious when you start assigning that progress to this system or another. nonetheless, if you really understand marx here, there's really no daylight between where he stands on this kind of development and where somebody on the furthest right of the development spectrum does - marxists and capitalists agree that a society like post-war china requires the introduction of capitalism to generate wealth as a starting point. it's only what happens now, 60 years later, where the marxists start to disagree with the capitalists.
- the definition of capitalism is the system where surplus value is extracted from workers by a class of managers, called capitalists. you can use as many scare quotes as you'd like, but that's what capitalism is - and the more capital is extracted, the worse the exploitation is. pointing to rising living standards as a consolation price doesn't cut it. why shouldn't the workers get everything?
- the proxy wars in africa are complicated, but china is absolutely funding all kinds of armed insurgency groups to fight this or that group, and this idea that they're just offering hands-off investment in return for no-questions-asked extraction is actually the same kind of relationship that the west had with the local slave markets in africa. sure - it's good for a small layer of bourgeoisie in africa, but the result is vicious exploitation of the african working class. and, there's a word for that model, as well - it's called neo-liberalism and it's not connected with any kind of communist concept of social development in any way at all.
- i would suggest that global capitalism uses imperialism as a tool of dominance whenever it can, absolutely. imperialism need not be capitalistic, but capitalism will never avoid the use of imperial tactics to advance itself. as it happens to be, china is an empire, regardless of whether it is a capitalist one or not, and china's imperialist nature is deeper than it's embrace of capitalism. so, it would certainly follow that if china is the new capitalist overlord then they will begin the process of dominating the rest of the world around them, like the empire that they are. and, as mentioned, we are seeing that today in both south america and in africa, even if the us military presence in their direct periphery continues to make that difficult for them.
- democracy has a deep history in greek, roman and german culture. while western capitalism has not always upheld democratic concepts, democracy is nonetheless baked into both the underlying panhellenism and germanic substrates that define what we call western civilization and some concept of progress is indeed present in western history. conversely, democracy is rejected as inferior and in fact even largely ridiculed as stupid by chinese culture, which insists that the people must be ruled from above. while i did not wish to present a caricature, the difference is nonetheless fundamental, and you are being naive if you expect the chinese to even pretend to care about human rights anywhere in the world, or to ever take even the most trivial steps towards any concept of individual autonomy or self-ownership - it's just not present in their culture. you are merely a meaningless cog in a system, and you shall die for the greater good, if required.
Your arguments about China are ignorant, filled with half trues and with false statements (like chinese people being white or China never being colonized). And the fact that you constantly white-washing the western-imperialistic system, ranging from the claim that colonizers asked nicely to be provided with slaves by other africans, which is nonesense, they went there with their army and weapons and slaughered millions in the process of their exploitation. Or the claim that the west is a beacon for democracy (maybe if you only count white people and their human rights, then maybe sure): again the US toppled more then 70 goverments and it never mattered if they were democratly elected or not. The US also supported Apartheid South Africa and declared Mandela a terrorist (until 2008). And lets not forget that the western imperialist are in CONSTANT war and are slaugthering hundred thousands of people in the middle east. You even tried to argue that somehow the freaking US military is a force against imperialism which is just ridiculous.
