On 11 July, Cuba saw thousands of demonstrators take to the streets in cities across the island. The protests are believed to have started in the Artemisa Province before spreading to neighboring Havana and further afield, including Cuba’s second-largest city, Santiago de Cuba. Press reports largely claim that protesters are motivated by shortages and the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. More
Thousands took to the streets of Cuba to protest against the country’s deepening social and economic crisis, made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic. The conditions in Cuba today are a direct result of imperialist aggression against the country, led by the United States and its 60-plus-year embargo. Meanwhile, the one-party regime represses the protesters who want to defend the revolution.
We inject our two manifestos into this well done but probably futile gesture in the long really of Trotsky movements.
What audience can the left expect in this case?
We need a new framework altogether…
Western Marxists still have the idealistic wish for justice that spawned the modern radical left. They would be liquidated day one by the Chinese so-called communists if they ever took power. The Marxist legacy is a hopeless failure, but it is not hard to start over and repair terms.
The left must move on and redefine its terminology. Our DMNC model could easily produce an economy as dynamic as the modern capitalist systems but still, be socialist (or neo-communist). Furthermore, these capitalist dynamos can’t respond to the regrowth era and are already dinosaurs: our DMNC can accelerate growth or go into static mode: and it is free of austerity issues (at least in principle).
Update: the question arises, how explain the phenomenal growth of China in the last forty years? But as noted in the post the reason is due to capitalism imported into one area of China. In any case, rapid development is characteristic of all systems we can see: England took off after 1780 and was well developed even before the introduction of rail. Germany’s take after 1870 was well underway by 1910. Japan’s development was even faster and exceeded that of most western nations.
So it is misleading to point to the fast growth in China. You can’t really compare the two categories: the stage of the American economy is long since in an alternate universe and its phenomenal growth after the Civil War is typical, as in each case.
The discussion is meaningless because we don’t define socialism. And we have suggested the left should move on to a new terminology and set of definitions. If you call China socialist you are implying a system with gulags, mass murder and totalitarian government is socialist. The refusal of Marx to define his terms is the ultimate source of the confusion.
Our remedy is to abandon the Marxist confusion (much else is useful) and adopt failsafe definitions: DMNC, democratic market neo-communism. Something can’t be socialist without satisfying a broader definition, that includes democracy, socialist markets plus planning, a Commons that is beyond state capitalism, and a careful ecosocialist extension. By this definition China is a total nothing. The Maoists murdered a million capitalists, created an archaeo=communist monstrosity and then cheated by using capitalism to get itself out of a rut.
Our DMNC could failsafe the definition and shows the way to do the job right.
Donald Trump asking Xi Jinping for Karl Marx reading recommendations, especially anything on “spiritual pursuit” Four days ago Michael Roberts posted an article titled “China workshop: …
The problem with China is that it isn’t a communism: it is a Stalinist construct whose beginning was a massacre of one million capitalists. Such a system can never be a model and I would that it is basic a system based on terror. Unfair?
Check out my DMNC model: all systems, including US and China are (degenerate versions of that model); the us has democracy in quotes, markets with a vengearnc, a bit of planning, a few nationalized tidbits, and no Commons. China has no democracy, capitalist colonialis markets, state capitalism but no Commons, and lots of planning
Bo0th systems here fail because they are fragments of DMNC.
The Three Revolutions of the Chinese Communist Party
By Walden Bello.
After a visit to the new Soviet Union in the 1930s, the American journalist Lincoln Steffens famously wrote, “I have seen the future and it works.” In a similar manner, China’s startling success has captivated many outside China.
One of those most mesmerized is the Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs has done a complete turnaround from his early days as a champion of the free-market “Washington Consensus” in the 1980s and 1990s. In a recent talk with United Nations officials, Sachs claimed that “China shows a path for how it is possible to make profound transformations for well-being in a short period of time.”
Sachs, who has been accused by some of his colleagues of “channeling Xi Jin Ping,” is just one of a bevy of liberal and progressive western economists who no longer have any hope that a U.S. economy ruined by neoliberal policies that have fostered deindustrialization, out-of-control financial speculation, and spectacular inequality (with 50 per cent of the population having access to only 12 percent of the wealth) has much of value to offer the global South. China, on the other hand, is seen as the new North Star, the country most capable of providing global leadership for a strategy that Sachs calls “sustainable development.”
But China has not embraced Sachs’ “sustainable development,” nor has it promoted what some western economists have deluded themselves into thinking of as China’s response to the neoliberal Washington Consensus: the so-called Beijing Consensus. When it comes to what China has to offer the world, Beijing has gone out of its way to say it is not prescribing a model for other countries. Indeed, it has gone to some lengths to claim that what Deng Xiaoping called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is a state-guided capitalist system unique to China and probably non-transferable.
On February 25, 2021, China’s President Xi Jinping announced that his country of 1.4 billion people had pulled its people out of poverty as it is defined internationally. Since 1981, 853 million Chinese people have lifted themselves out of poverty thanks to large-scale interventions from both the Chinese state and the Communist Party of China More
The left as we have noted is still mired in the failed legacy of Bolshevism/Stalinism. Beyond that, the legacy of Marxism is the ultimate source of that derailment. Stalinism shows almost every way the transition to communism can go wrong. This situation has left the current Marxist brand beyond salvage. And that could be good at a time when the onset of postcapitalism emerges on its own with the left mostly turning in circles.s
It is a bit late in the day to be still mucking about in Stalinism. Time to leave it all behind. Socialist need to defy the Marxist monopoly that his usurped the path to a sne postcapitalism.
Chinese pseudo-communism is nothing to celebrate. Look at these grotesque Stalinist mass demonstrations of zombie cadres.
The Chinese communists are a real threat to leftist groups across the world. They will attempt to control or infiltrate them and/or bribe/fund such.
Let us grant that China still suffers its history of being more than bullied by imperial powers…
The Chinese leader was speaking at an event marking the centenary of the ruling Communist Party.
The Chinese Communist Party is celebrating its centenary. From its origins among a handful of activists in an economically underdeveloped country occupied by more advanced capitalist powers, to the hegemonic bureaucracy ruling what is now one of the most powerful imperialist states in world history, the CCP has undergone several transformations.
It is almost impossible to consider oneself and American anymore: the US is a criminal organization…