Stephen Gowans (author of the banger 'Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom') made a blog post. I critiqued what was pretty stupid analysis of China ( see comments ) and in response he kind of said 'no, you're wrong' and then proved me right. Am I missing something? This feels very strange.
I don't really see how he proved you right with his response. Gowans said "China is a People’s Republic, not a Workers’ Republic. The Communist party’s main newspaper is the People’s Daily, not the Workers’ Daily." to show that the CPC emphasizes an abstract class collaboration rather than emphasizing class conflict. You cite a quote from Mao saying that the CPC uses a different definition of 'the people', and that a dedication to socialism is still implied.
I'm not sure how you go from that to assuming that Gowans believed that Maoist China was capitalist
That's interesting. I've read that the CPC interprets the large star as the party, and the four social classes of China: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie.
I'm not sure. The PRC says that the "five stars symbolize the solidarity of the various nationalities of China", and "the five stars signify the unity of the people of China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party" and this is further supported by the fact that the National Emblem has symbols for the proletariat and the peasantry distinct from the stars. However, the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Republic of Ghana says "the larger star represents the CPC, while the four smaller ones, the Chinese people". I think it would be strange for a single ethnic group to be represented by a larger star, (unless it relates to population size), so I probably favor this explanation. I know I'm conflating the stars on the national emblem with the stars on the national flag but the fact that they are the same number and both encircle a larger star seems to suggest they represent the same concept. I found the explanation you were talking about in this article, which also says the flag design was determined by a competition, which I didn't know! The article also mentions that this meaning is found in Mao's speech ON THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP , however this contained no mention of the flag. You might also notice that this speech contains more hostile language against national bourgeois collaboration in building socialism, but this is explained, "During the War of Resistance Against Japan, all those classes, strata and social groups opposing Japanese aggression came within the category of the people, while the Japanese imperialists, their Chinese collaborators and the pro-Japanese elements were all enemies of the people. During the War of Liberation, the U.S. imperialists and their running dogs -- the bureaucrat-capitalists, the landlords and the Kuomintang reactionaries who represented these two classes -- were the enemies of the people, while the other classes, strata and social groups, which opposed them, all came within the category of the people. At the present stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people." The latter speech is from eight years after the former, hence Mao said in the former "the Kuomintang reactionaries whom we are now overthrowing". Notice also that the national bourgeoisie is still oppressed, they cannot own land and lease it, landlording is illegal, the national bourgeoisie is tolerated only inasmuch they contribute to the building of socialism, as Mao said, and eventually they will go extinct. Back to the point, the wiki article on the flag is a whole heap of "citation needed". If you can show me an official source concretely describing the meaning of the flag that would be very well.
I think you're right, your source is more authoritative than what I found
"I’m not sure how you go from that to assuming that Gowans believed that Maoist China was capitalist" What other conclusion could I draw? The comments below you talk about conflating the bourgeoisie and the people, but Mao says, "In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie comes under the category of contradictions among the people. By and large, the class struggle between the two is a class struggle within the ranks of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has a dual character... The national bourgeoisie differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists. The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours" (from the same text I quoted in the comment). So you see why I said I didn't want to debate SWCC, because this specific conception of the people is particular to SWCC. I only showed that Mao held this same belief and conception. Gowans says, "Capitalists and billionaires, if they’re Chinese, are thus part of the Chinese people, the basic unit of analysis for the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore have a role to play—indeed, the principal one—in China’s economic development under the capitalist path the party has chosen. The party does not set as its goal the elimination of the wage system, the emancipation of the proletariat from the capitalist yoke, or an end to the exploitation of humans by humans—historical goals of socialism. It sets instead as its aim the economic development of China". He wants this to be a critique of modern China, but it ends up being a critique of China under the leadership of Mao as well (just to clarify, I am not slandering Gowans here, he praises Mao's contributions here ). But how do I know for sure that Gowans does not understand China or SWCC and that he is not making a general critique of China? Because he replied to my comment with this, "Am I suggesting that China under Mao was a capitalist state? No, not at all. My references to China are to China of today." This settles it. This concretely shows that he regards the PRC's sentiment towards the national bourgeoisie as distinct to the post-reform era. You say that he was merely showing how China has ALWAYS emphasized development and collaboration over struggle with the remaining domestic bourgeoisie, but he himself admits that is not the case.
This is how he proved me correct and how his critique relates to China as a capitalist state, which would implicate Mao's China as well. What do you not understand? I had originally typed out a much shorter response but here.
To be sure, the mechanisms of capitalist class influence that characterize US society hardly seem to characterize China. Lay aside the fact that China’s Communist party admits capitalists and boasts not a few billionaires. But is this so odd? China is a People’s Republic, not a Workers’ Republic. The Communist party’s main newspaper is the People’s Daily, not the Workers’ Daily. Capitalists and billionaires, if they’re Chinese, are thus part of the Chinese people, the basic unit of analysis for the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore have a role to play—indeed, the principal one—in China’s economic development under the capitalist path the party has chosen. The party does not set as its goal the elimination of the wage system, the emancipation of the proletariat from the capitalist yoke, or an end to the exploitation of humans by humans—historical goals of socialism. It sets instead as its aim the economic development of China.
lmao. I guess Mao is not a socialist then because he didn't think to call modern China a Worker's Republic instead of a People's Republic.
But China does make a pretense of being Communist, and certain “Marxist-Leninist” supporters believe that China is socialist. China is socialist so far as words can be made to mean anything one wants them to mean. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”—the qualification is a dead give-away that we’re talking about something other than socialism as it has been understood historically—is a capitalist society governed by the Communist Party of China (and ruled by capitalist imperatives), where the party’s principal goal is national rejuvenation through capitalist development, not the emancipation of the proletariat and elimination of class. This makes Communist China something like Japan under the Meiji emperor and Germany under Bismarck.
Virgin "China is a capitalist country pretending to be socialist in order to fool a bunch of useless Western leftists" vs Chad "China is a socialist country pretending to be capitalist to attract FDI from Western capitalists"
In general, Western analysis of China is almost completely worthless. I've read more compelling arguments about why China is capitalist from Global South entrepreneurs who want their countries to emulate capitalism with Chinese characteristics. He's literally just some random white dude from Canada apparently. Why would anyone takes his opinions on China seriously? At least those Global South entrepreneurs actually rubbed shoulders with Chinese people and don't live in a deeply Sinophobic society like Canada.
He’s literally just some random white dude from Canada apparently. Why would anyone takes his opinions on China seriously? At least those Global South entrepreneurs actually rubbed shoulders with Chinese people and don’t live in a deeply Sinophobic society like Canada.
I don't really get this criticism. Obviously there is value in having personal experience in the society you are analyzing, but not having that experience doesn't automatically mean an analysis is worthless. Enough information is out there about China that an outsider can make intelligent analyses of Chinese society.
No, it's not just personal experience, but also mastery of the language, understanding the political system (both in terms of direct experience and impersonal analysis), knowing people who were born and raised in China, understanding Chinese philosophy, especially political philosophy, understanding Chinese history (and not just the brief decade of the GCPR, but all 5000 years of it), and so on. Not everything pertaining to Chinese society is going to be written in English. Most things, understandably, would be written or spoken exclusively in Chinese. And this is not getting into the poor state of English translations of Mao's works where they use some unholy union of half Gades-Wiles/half postal romanization to romanize Chinese words.
The vast majority of Chinese people outside the diaspora would understand all this by virtue of receiving a Chinese education. Non-Chinese people who know what the fuck they're talking about tend to either spend significant amounts of time in China or are academics who specialize in Chinese studies. And I don't think Mr. Gowans is any of those things. He probably just read a few bad translations of Mao and briefly skimmed over The Governance of China to cherry-pick the parts where Xi sounds like a revisionist.
lmao. I guess Mao is not a socialist then because he didn’t think to call modern China a Worker’s Republic instead of a People’s Republic.
My exact point, he supports Mao as well so it's nonsense. I don't like the 'random white guy' comment, his book on the DPRK was very good and one of the best modern retellings of the Korean War. The fact that land cannot be privately owned but merely leased from the state might have been something to bring up if I cared to have an argument on SWCC but I just wanted to point out the "people vs worker" bs.
Lenin also critiques the use of the term "people's state" for this reason though, "The 'free people's state' was a programme demand and a catchword current among the German Social-Democrats in the seventies. this catchword is devoid of all political content except that it describes the concept of democracy in a pompous philistine fashion. Insofar as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to “justify” its use “for a time” from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist catchword, for it amounted to something more than prettifying bourgeois democracy, and was also a failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism. But we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a 'special force' for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not 'free' and not a 'people's state'. Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the seventies." ( The State and Revolution , p. 16). Lenin is saying the term people's state is ridiculous because the state is a machine for suppressing a certain class at the whim of the other, thus it cannot represent the whole of the people. That's why I included the Mao quote in the original comment, because that definition of the people is specific to SWCC. Can't find the quote from Lenin also but he defines the DOTP as a union between the petty-bourgeoisie, peasantry, and proletariat, with the latter at the head, for the purpose of suppressing the total bourgeois elements. Also in a lot of the Black Panther Party's rhetoric, speeches by leaders, and so on, they use the term "people" to mean proletariat.
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
