From Marx to Mao to Jintao

Re: #13 allah001 & quin #7:

Dear allah001:

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't think I’m knowledgeable enough to answer your question regarding Nixon’s geopolitical maneuvering while opening up with China. I presume there will be some consideration of that too. Maybe someone else on Chowk could offer views on that particular issue.

Anyhow, I am positively delighted to read “Interact #7 by quin� who has raised a very logical and valid question. “… how historical materialism is being turned on its head�. I think that kind of assertion is certainly questionable if not speculative. That is a topic for full length article.

Due to time constraints, I don’t know when but I might write something on this topic in the future. Meanwhile, I would most welcome if quin writes about it because I admire his insight and wisdom in many intellectual disciplines.

Regards,

Tahir

Re: # 30
Is it right you dont really care in communism of Work according to capacity wage according to means crudely put


"4. Capitalist society, which Marx described as a huge progress over the previous systems.........



5. Communist Society, in which everyone will contribute according to one’s ability and will receive according to one’s needs. In such a society, there will be no need for a state and so, the state shall wither away"





"The idea is to go from Ancient /Feudal society to CAPITALISM"you contend


"In doing so, they have also shown that dictatorship of the proletariat precedes rather than succeeds Capitalism"

This is logical b/c each system is selfishness motivated.

WHY would capitalist even though he /she has arrived at it though natural evolution of Ancient /feudal society give up capitalism ?

Will capitalism compel & cause dictatorship of porletariat.Never

.I think it age old example of Chicken & Egg.

Its not Putting the case on its head

precedes or follows is 'dil ko behlane ke liye ghalib ye khyal accha hai .'

Chinese show in marketiing .public relation is meaning less as hype (too much of it )

Second dictatorship of proleteriat never happened .USA will never let it happen

The nixon visit and Kissinger false promise to Yahya can be seen in this light

.Of course i am Biased AGAINST usa's filthy capitalism

& its attemt to consider 'proleteriate threat 'greater than Islamic jehadist terrorism

.After all 'non proleteriate' Saudi princes, Rich muslims are friend and never Proleteriate even if he/she is Christian

Re: # 33

and then to Anna DMK ..LOL

India's decline can of course be traced to the fact that we went from Chanakya to Jawaharlal Nehru!

#29 Posted by dost_mittar

right, I agree and that is why I said they are more of a misnomer now. Today both these terms reflect the degree of social orientation of economy.

The terms socialist or capitalist for economy were always incorrect. You simply can not have either totally state owned or individual owned economy. Any complex hierarchy needs distribution of role/resources and as individuals are at the end of this hierarchy and state at root; you will always have some roles/resources at root and some at other levels, including organizations/companies/individuals.

So both terms define a far fetched idea that is not practical (that is why you can not even define properly what socialism or capitalism is).

Eventually, it is always the responsibility of state to bring social development as well as economic development for society. The whole idea of state or politics is to manage these two. You can be as innovative as you want when you try to manage these two aspects of development of society, depending upon the intellectual level of your society. In an ideal world you want a bottom-up approach, where people elect organizations and state-machinery to get things done.

What socialism or capitalism do is to create a mind-set of psychology. Again in future you will need much more refined concepts that these to create a conducive environment to manage people. People don't understand but the idea of different castes like Brahman, Kshtriya blah blah was also the same. It was to create a state that manages itself with little bit of central authority.

The biggest problem with the definition of state is that you need people to represent state and its authority. You don't have robots or super-computers to do that till now:-).

BJ:

Majumdar has already given the right answer; it was not one or the other but both.

I could even give you an example from our own country: most Hindu and Sikh refugees arrived penniless to India from Pakistan but within a decade were able to rehabilitate themselves because of their human capital which also included a good work ethic and high level of energy.

majumdar:

JLN was in the best position to play the strong authoritarian role played by Mao in China. He was considered the uncrowned king of India; had a complete control over the Centre and State governments through his Congress chieftains.

Unfortunately, the state under him neglected the very things that the state is best equipped to do - improve literacy, health and economic infrastructure like roads and power and frittered his energies on building heavy industries in India and non-alignment movement abroad.

...But that's another story.

pinku:

I do not know of any economy that is "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism", with the possible exception of North Korea. Most economies today are mixed-economies and some of the so-called capitalist economies also have a large state component. For example, in the US, the state takes more than a third of the GDP in taxes which it then partly uses to fund various social schemes.

The key point to remember is that the economy grows best in a market set-up but you need the state to provide a safety net for those who lose out under market forces.

Beej bhayya,

It was a mix of both. American protection did allow them to focus resources away from defence but remember they were already a very advanced country even before WW-II. After all they did bomb Pearl Harbour half an ocean away using their own technology! WW-II may have destroyed their factories but not (much of) the human resources that went into it. Ditto with Germany.

Regards

Re: # 23

[Japan was able to progress fast after the War, but the social revolution that made it possible had already taken place in Japan by an authoritarian regime in Japan in decades preceding the War.]

IMHO, it was the American protection (military wise) which enabled Japan to focus all its resources at development without sinking much of it in defense. The rest must be attributed to the hard work and tenacity of its population. The Chinese (initially) wasted a lot of resources on the military, hence remained behind.

DM sahib,

Mao would have transformed the society in less than a generation.

Can Hindoos produce a Mao. Or a Hindoo Mao seize power in India.

Btw, had JLN and more importantly Indira not mismanaged India for so long, the differential between India and China would have been much lower.

Regards

Excellent article,

In the long run both socialism and capitalism work against state. Socialism overrides all other objectives by making the means to be an end. So unless you have visionary statesman a socialist state will remain where it is or will become unmanageable over long time. Capitalism conflicts with any other objective by making social objectives to be individual's objective (I/my-family is rich/secure etc etc). Here you get powerful people who consider themselves as whole of society instead of looking at the society as a whole. In the long run it will always divide society in haves and have-nots and will become un-manageable.

So neither extraordinary concern for equality in case of socialism or advancement in case of capitalism is self sufficient. Both of them need a state to keep things manageable. China was able to see this thing because it had both the example of Capitalist and Socialist states before it. also, it had people who really cared for their nation (irrespective of how much they cared for themselves).

India is a capitalist state with socialist objectives, if you don't disturb it from outside, it will keep on improving itself over a long time but with slow pace. So individual's in India are surviving on capitalism, on hard competition, but they seem to work against social equality most of the time, but the state itself seems to take socialist views most of the time. That is the whole idea of state, it should be for the whole society, while individuals define their own -ism for living. This is most natural atmospehere for society to grow. However, once you have powerful companies, powerful people who are not so wel intentioned towards social goals, such a state may become a puppet of powerful individuals. This can not happen in India for long time to come because of its very diverse and complex society. So as long as India as a state survives, then in all probability (even if it is ruled by worst possible politicians), it will force people to work towards overall social objectives (meaning, it will make growing 300 million middle class to work for themselves and in part for upliftment of 1.1 billion people as well).


In short neither socialism nor capitalism are synonymous of state or are themselves that important. A nation can be neither socialist nor capitalist and can still have a very progressive yet equal society. Both socialism and Capitalism are miused terms to represent a preference for a set of vague social-objectives (vague because equality is not that well defined nor progress is that well defined).

Nikhat, Tahir, zeemax, Urstruly and jayp:

Thank you all for your comments.

BJ:

Marx was a great humanist. His problem was that he wanted to create a Utopia, which ignored human nature and the powerful motivation provided by greed and fear in the free enterprise societies, something which is not present in a communist society. Yes, Japan was able to progress fast after the War, but the social revolution that made it possible had already taken place in Japan by an authoritarian regime in Japan in decades preceding the War.

quin#7:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do not agree with some of your comments, though.

I got the information about inadequate compensation form interviews of the victims themselves by Canadian journalists; it may still be on CBC TV's website.

Regarding the arrangement, I thought it was appropriate to frame the issue in the context of the proletarian abodes being destroyed under what is theoretically still a dictatorship of the proletariat. But I agree that others may view it differently.

"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"

I have never come across these kind of statements in my readings. Would it be possible for you to give any quotation from Marx on this subject? Thanks.

tahmed saheb#5:

Yes, I agree with you that communism is not the necessary ingredient, but the regimentation of the society and an authoritarian regime, in my opinion, is necessary if a country is to achieve social revolution and reduce the time period in which to achieve it. South Korea did it and so did, Lee Kuan Yiew, although at a much smaller scale than China.

By contrast, Raja Ram Mohan Roy started the reform movement among Hindus over two hundred years ago, Gandhi called sweepers and scanvegers harijans (special children of God) and lived among them and India outlawed caste system and use of communal appeal in elections several decades ago; still these problems are still far from resolved; a Mao would have transformed the society in less than a generation.

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

Dost Mittar,
What do you say about the role of Capitalist USA in providing the market for Chinese products?
Do you think without Nixon's trip to China, it (China) would have prospered the way it has?

Thanks for this write up, Dost Mittar. I had not known that citizens were dispossessed of their homes for the Olympics. I had just been going through the photos of the opening ceremonies and thinking how tremendous it must have been. All those thousands of performers might be seen symbolically of each citizen made homeless in this bid of China as ascending superpower.

Dost Mittar sahib
Thanks for bringing us all the insightful info about china's revolution, Marx theory and china's economical growth. ver well written.
I just finished watching opening ceremony of beijing Olympics. wow! mesmerising....magical. Esp the use of light and trapeze techniques.
Marx or Mao or Jintao whoever 's theory they followed the only ingredient behind success of any nation's success is honest hard work. I love China
Nikhat Riaz

Dear reader:

"Turning Historical Materialism on Its Head" is not supposed to be the opening sentence; it was the title of the submitted article.

The essay equates "great leap forward" with "cultural revolution". This was not so: great leap forward preceded cultural revolution.

I apologise for these errors.