[eugene]

<strong>Written By:</strong> eugene
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-09-22 10:06:48
<a href="/article/40648719-china-the-truimph-of-state-capitalism">Article Link</a>

If you are a die hard bolshevik tendency all unto yourself, like the Spartacus League or the Marxist Leninists, you will see China as a truimph of Stalinism, and so called socialism in one state, which it is not.

Rather it is in transition from State Capitalism to Monopoly Capitalism,( ala Baran & Sweezy of Monthly Review). To misquote Lenin, though Bukharin would approve;

State Capitalism is the highest form of Monopoly Capitalism.

Being a very large shareholder in the state capitalist trust, the modern state is the highest and all-embracing organisational culmination of the latter. Hence its colossal, almost monstrous, power. N.I. Bukharin: Imperialism and World Economy Chapter XI

Thus the principles of class antagonisms reach a height that could not have been attained hitherto. Relations between classes become most clear, most lucid; the mythical conception of a "state elevated above classes" disappears from the peoples' consciousness, once the state becomes a direct entrepreneur and an organiser of production. Property relations, obscured by a number of intermediary links, now appear in their pristine nakedness.
N.I. Bukharin: Imperialism and World Economy Chapter XIV

State Capitalism emerged during the post War era and the Great Depression and continued after as an inevitable outgrowth of both a national and global expansion of post-WWII capitalist reconstruction, it is now mobilizing regional and national captials around monopolies. Whether they are American Transnational Corporations which are bound hand and foot to the American State by being part of the military industrial complex, or if it is large State funded corporations that are being privatized like those in China, it is still capitalism.

There is class struggle and class war, but there has never been a workers paradise. The fatal illusion of the Soviet Union and later the Chinese Revolution under Mao, is that they were some how socialist revolutions. The fact is that they were not working class revolutions at all since they were national revolutions. Socialism was the ideology but the practice was State Capitalism no different than its other manifetations, The New Deal in the U.S. and Facism in Italy, Spain, Germany, and Japan.

Read the rest of the article at:
<a href="http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/09/china-truimph-of-state-capitalism.html">http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/09/china-truimph-of-state-capitalism.html</a>

[boflaade]

It's a matter of which one veiws as better. Should the population be "kept" or left to fend for themselves. Obviously Americans believe in the latter and call it democracy and will still consider the former as socialist/communism. Both ideals will allow the rich to get richer as either captalist system will allow.