From Marx to Mao to Jintao

allah001:

Neither the US nor China are altruistic in their dealings with each other. They are two banias in a mutually profitable relationship; China provided cheap labour without unions, infrastructure, environment and a stable political climate needed by the US companies and the US provided the capital and technical know-how that the US had. It was a no-brainer, really!

And no, I do not think that China could have developed without Nixon going to China. Indeed, I don't think China was even admitted to the UN until then.

neembu#3:

I am not a luddite. I know that there is no free lunch and to build something new, something old (institutions, buildings, jobs, et al) have to go under. As long as the loss (cost) is borne equally by the society, one should have no problem, unfortunately, it seldom is.

The question remains, how many were shot dead after the opening ceremony for not having made the moves perfectly.

no one could have done it but the chinese.

dost mittar,

read the link below

Fake currency worth 1,69,000 crore pumped in by ISI.

ISI can not simply be treated as regular intelligence agency, it is a terrorist agency in the garb of intelligence agencies.

Very few intelligence agencies may be so involved in crime and terrorism as ISI.

DM-jee, nice piece!

I would like to comment more but somehow the mention of Communism (especially the Chinese kind) gives me heartburn. That system has created so much misery around the world that people talking of it as just another ideology ought to be taken to task. It was the worst curse on humanity - until the neo-Islamists came around and got into the act of blowing other people up along with themselves.

In the end, a society makes progress if its citizens are united in purpose and if they value their common bonding enough to help each other out as needed - thus reinforcing it where needed. When that happens, the society as a whole improves and moves forward. Both China and Japan have those unique attributes and have accordingly shown a remarkable ability to make most of opportunities as societies.

Japan raised itself from the ruins of the WW-II, using a strictly Capitalist system - far faster than the Chinese ever did. China fumbled around a lot under that cruel dictator Mao and did not get to the right path until the "Capitalist roaders" came to power and kicked out the "gang of four"! Over time, they were able to accomplish what the Japanese had done earlier.

Therefore, the specific system does not matter too much. In the end, it's always the people!

Zeemax
"It is also a confirmation of my contention that Deng merely switched rails, "

Deng did switch the rails, the ones going in the opposite direction.

Tahir

"Had Nixon not taken that trip, I am sure someone else might have trodden the crowded Chinese markets few years down the road."

Wasnt Nixons trip more to do with containing the Soviets? And if the Chinese had someone other than Deng at that time it probably would be a lost cause, wouldn't it?

India also had a huge population in 70's and 80's when Coca Cola left the country due to the countrys policy towards foreign investment. Hence a large population necessarily is a not a guarantee for economic success.

urstruly: hate to break it to you..but the chinese despise the islamist terrorists as much as all other civilized nations of the world. and the "western reporters" i have been reading from have been unanimous in their appreciation of the chinese. and the sports stadium in which the opening day ceremonies took place was designed by..western architects. (the chinese, unlike the taliban, have brains. they dont go around picking fights like fools with everyone).

One particular display in the opening ceremony was revealingly characteristic of the Chinese determination, unity, and direction.

Some ten thousand participants with their human forms alone and without the aid of any computerization, but through memorized movements alone, formed shifting shapes of a gigantic abacus, to a computer keyboard to various Chinese characters - perfectly synchronized.

One thing I dont understand is why every news anchor on western propaganda machinery has to be so contemptuous while reporting about Beijing Olympics. All of them sound like, as if a garam aalu has been placed on their sorry behind.

Go China!

In my opinion China is a unique miracle in the history of mankind. Yes, the nations have risen and fallen since time immemorial but it is only China where the standard of living of 1.5 billion human beings is being raised consistently across the strata.

I am also glad that Chinese proved to be lot smarter than their Russian counterparts who fell for the western propaganda of democracy and capitalism and got their empire collapsed in the matter of months. What idiots.

dost_mittar,

The following passage is 100% accurate, and shows how false some people's thesis is that Deng reversed Mao's direction and turned capitalist because Mao was wrong. It is also a confirmation of my contention that Deng merely switched rails, and those too only partially, when it was time to do so.

China is truly 'One Country-Two Systems', a concept the western capitalists scoffed at when Deng announced this perplexing and seemingly self-contradictory policy direction upon regaining Hong Kong. They were all proven wrong. It only worked because Mao had built Society to accept State over the Individual, without question.

Both Russia and China, especially China, have turned Marx’s theory of historical materialism on its head. Instead of using a mass revolution to expedite a transition from a capitalist to a communist stage, they have used the revolution to move fast from a feudal to an industrial society, bring about a revolutionary change in the class divisions in the society and induced rapid improvement in human development in terms of education and health. These are a pre-requisite to a fast take-off for an economy. In doing so, they have also shown that dictatorship of the proletariat precedes rather than succeeds Capitalism.

In the spirit of positive criticism, I will discuss the negatives only (with due respect):
First, I question authenticity of the claim that families were evicted with no compensation while constructing Olympic facilities. A reference must be provided.
Second, the way the article is arranged makes it hard for the reader to work out what the author is trying to convey. The basic information about Marxism strays to far from the basic theme of the article viz., how historical materialism is being turned on its head.
Third, the beginning of article creates a very different expectation (China and Olympic) than what the article is really about. So, the reader has to plod through all theory of Marxism before catching the thread and being able to understand where it is leading.
Fourth, the theory of Marxism without making connection to the article theme (turning on head thing) sounds like a downloading of mere information. In other words, it becomes data / information and not knowledge, contrary to author’s real intentions which of course is to illuminate a particular idea.
Finally, a comment on the content. Marx never said that his theory is the final word. He always insisted on life’s transcendence over any theory. His real contribution is to inspire people to search for real answers to their problems and to rise up to change the fate of their lot. As life always presents unique problems at every turn, as Marx always realized, people will always find unique solutions at every turn. Any attempt to stick to any theory for ever as an unchanging word is the Achilles heel of human kind. It is not Marx's historical materialism which seems to be turned on its head, but its 19th century interpretation. And really the argument can be made that it is not 'turning on its head' but its enrichment.

Dost Mittar: Good article. You wrote "Both Russia and China, especially China, have turned Marx’s theory of historical materialism on its head. Instead of using a mass revolution to expedite a transition from a capitalist to a communist stage, they have used the revolution to move fast from a feudal to an industrial society, bring about a revolutionary change in the class divisions in the society and induced rapid improvement in human development in terms of education and health."

I think this is well put. However, by the same token, communism per se is a useless doctrine. The revolution in its name - which resulted in improvements in health and education - is what is important. You can achieve these without the heavy cost in human lives (30 milllion died in China in the 1950's due to failed agriculture policies based on communist doctrine, e.g.) that communism exacted in the soviet union and china. (india, japan being examples).

Dear allah001 (Interact #4):

Interesting question!! But, I'm getting the chance to talk to "allah" first time in my life. I beg forgiveness :)

Kidding aside, I am sure Dost Mittar is more than capable of answering your question. I am taking liberty to comment as well.

I sense Dost Mittar may tell you that gist of Marxism is diagonally opposite to your understanding of historical forces. It seems you think of historic forces in a “Top-down Tickle Model�.

While talking of historic forces, leaders (Nixon etc) are only managers of political economy at a certain point in history. Had Nixon not taken that trip, I am sure someone else might have trodden the crowded Chinese markets few years down the road.

In broad historic context, Nixon’s trip is a relatively small event. I guess, Marx explains it best … In his own words, Marx – (The Seer of social justice ever first time in the history of mankind):

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past�.

Ps: Aside from few points here and there that Dost Mittar wrote in his/her article, I still think, conceptually, this is one of the best on Chowk dealing with this subject. Very readable. Dost Mittar … Thank you!

Regards,

Tahir Qazi