Welcome to the New Chinese Century

Posted by on

Category
Articles

 

Military officers stand onboard China’s aircraft carrier “Liaoning” in Dalian, northeast China’s Liaoning Province, Sept. 25, 2012.

China’s first aircraft carrier was delivered and commissioned to the Navy of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army on Tuesday after years of refitting and sea trials. (Xinhua/Zha Chunming)

101 thoughts on “Welcome to the New Chinese Century”

  2. SSDO on said:

    So why should socialists celebrate an augmentation of the military capacity of an authoritarian and increasingly nationalist state that collaborates in the brutal superexploitation of its working class by both domestic and multinational capital? I am sure that this blog’s readers will be able to furnish an immaculate Marxist justification for the benefit of those that just don’t get it.

      Quote text  Reply

  4. jack ford on said:

    We live in both an empire and a civilization right now; the civilization is western industrial civilization, the empire is the American empire, which is a temporal and geographical subset of the civilization — that subset that happens to be dominated by one particular nation. A century ago, the big empire was Britain’s; a century from now — well, assuming industrial civilization can survive Peak Oil and global warming, it does look very likely that the Chinese will be masters of the world.

      Quote text  Reply

  5. SSDO on said:

    It is a genuine question, Tony. I see no reason whatsoever for socialists to be enthusiastic about China’s acquisition of an aircraft carrier. I really would like somebody to explain it to me. Once I understand what the position is, I can then mount a constructive critique. So I repeat the remark – why should workers in this country by happy about all this?

      Quote text  Reply

  7. Paul Reissner on said:

    SSDO,

    To try to understand world politics via the prism of the question “why should workers in this country by happy about all this?” has nothing to do with a socialist analysis. On the contrary it is an excellent example of the inadequate, narrow, chauvinistic politics that passes for socialism in Britain. The reality is that socialists in places like China and Latin America have much to teach socialists in Britain. Whereas British socialists have very few achievements or insights to share with them. A bit of humility and reality is in order.

      Quote text  Reply

  8. SSDO on said:

    But Paul, on most rational readings of Marxist politics, the interests of the working class as the revolutionary subject of history are central. So please explain what makes this framework ‘inadequate, narrow,chauvinistic’. And who do you regard as the socialists in China? Presumably the Chinese ruling class?

      Quote text  Reply

  9. Omar on said:

    I think it might be better to focus on the ability of China to successfully contain the destructive effects of international finance capital rather than promoting it’s role as a military power, which will have the effect of encouraging a Pacific arms race.

      Quote text  Reply

  10. Charles Dexter Ward on said:

    All that weaponry, all those rigid bodies, individuality crushed out of them – give you hope for the future, doesn’t it?

      Quote text  Reply

  14. John Grimshaw on said:

    Err…it used to be Russian didn’t it. And at the moment its got no aeroplannes. So a bit of a while yet to catch up with the good old US of A?

      Quote text  Reply

  20. Jellytot on said:

    @2increasingly nationalist state

    The Chinese Communist movement, since its inception, has always had a strong nationalistic component, in its fight against the various imperialisms that have blighted China.

    @4it does look very likely that the Chinese will be masters of the world.

    I don’t think they are interested in being “masters of the world” and have neither the inclination or ability to replace the U.S.

    They are understandably concerned with their regional security and any military build up is commensurate with their increased economic footprint.

    @10All that weaponry, all those rigid bodies, individuality crushed out of them

    Yeah, like most other military units – effective ones at any rate.

      Quote text  Reply

  21. John Grimshaw on said:

    http://www.fin24.com/Opinion/Columnists/No-all-weather-friend-20120925

    Jellytot: I don’t think they are interested in being “masters of the world” and have neither the inclination or ability to replace the U.S.
    They are understandably concerned with their regional security and any military build up is commensurate with their increased economic footprint.

    Eelytot. It is difficult to know where to begin with your comments on these matters. Surely it is obvious that China is exercising its imperialist muscle as it grows in power. Before you rage against the dieing of the light I am not a sinophobe, the Chinese are merely growing into a space left available by the decline of the western imperialist powers. The time has gone however when anybody should be deluding themselves that they are in anyway different to the USA or Britain etc. except in terms of what they’ve got in their pockets.

      Quote text  Reply

  23. Jellytot on said:

    @21The time has gone however when anybody should be deluding themselves that they are in anyway different to the USA or Britain etc.

    Of course, it’s different.

    Chinese partnerships in places like Africa are massively beneficial to the host population and society, totally unlike exploitative Western interventions, and if the PRC does have an increased global military reach in future it will be about protecting such things as sea-lanes and not bombing and invading Middle Eastern countries; a rather good thing for the populations of places like Iraq and Iran, don’t you think?

    It’s a shame, though understandable, that some Western Socialists view everything through the prism of Eurocentric/North American geo-political mores and ascribe to developing countries like China the basest and most venal of motives; motives more applicable to their own governments.

      Quote text  Reply

  24. jack ford on said:

    #4 Yeah masters of the world was a bit over the top. I do think China could replace the US as the next superpower over the course of this century especially if the alliance with Russia holds.

    China doesn’t yet have the ability to project military power across the planet the way the US does so it is not in a position to go in for the violent imperialism of the West. It conducts win win deals with African governments but its companies very often treat their African workers abominably with the full support of their buddies in corrupt African governments. Also their infrastructure projects often tend to employ Chinese workers rather than training up Africans with the result that the infrastructure is not always maintained properly once the Chinese contractors leave and doesn’t provide Africans with well paid high skilled jobs.

    If and when the PLA Navy army and air force does become a match for NATO it is not impossible that they will start toppling Third World governments and installing clients the way the US does although at least the Chinese Empire is unlikely to go in for a load of bullshit propaganda about freedom and human rights. Harmonious co prosperity sphere perhaps?

      Quote text  Reply

  25. Sam64 on said:

    An address that the Chinese CP (ruling class) might make via Socialist Unity:

    Thanks to the far sighted leadership of leader to be Xi Jinping (er, no, he’s gone, palace coup) the Chinese people have made massive strides in catching up with the West. We have now surpassed the British in levels of inequality and soon we will have caught the US itself! Our emerging billionaire class is to be seen in the finest hotels and restaurants across the world, and you have heard of property acquisitions in Belgravia, Manhattan and the Champs-Elysées. Our advance cadres are even now making plans to move into the cradle of Western civilisation by buying Greek Islands. Only European legislation making such things as redundancy payments for employees prevents us from acquiring more foreign capital. Meanwhile, we offer development for African countries by infrastructural projects staffed largely by own labour and consumer ventures that are destroying smaller domestic competition.

    But we have learnt lessons from the USA, especially from the era of the 1930s: when our workers have the temerity to strike, not realising the socialist task of the ceaseless drive for profit, corrupt local officials hire small private armies of thugs to smash strikers so ensure production is not set back. And of course, Chinese workers have welfare that is second to none – well perhaps not the 50 million migrant workers who have no rights to education and health at all but that is a minor detail of history. Finally, thanks to our vigilant monitoring of the web we have no ‘socialists’ who spend their days pontificating on websites like Socialist Unity!

      Quote text  Reply

  26. Marko on said:

    SSDO – I can’t remember Mr Olser quite putting the imperialist crimes in Iraq etc etc etc etc etc etc by armed to the teeth USA in such ‘Marxists worker analysis’ context.

    Now the only reason you could find any cheer for this inevitable development is that it may curb US global hegemony. A necessary step I think for the crisis to really hit the heart of the empire. A crisis for US hegemony is a crisis for the US and could give space for major changes in that nation.

    But it shouldn’t be about reasons to be cheerful, what you need is sober analysis of the rise of China to world power. Therefore this bit of Chinese flag waving is pretty bloody distasteful.

      Quote text  Reply

  28. BY on said:

    Not only is the ship a cold war relic that was on the verge of being sold-off as a floating casino, but Britain has had aircraft carriers since WWI. What exactly is Great Helmsman Andy wetting himself over here? Does he imagine it anchored in the Bristol Channel at some future date to assist in the liberation of the workers and peasants of Wiltshire?

      Quote text  Reply

  29. Benjamin on said:

    I am not the greatest supporter of Communist China, but recognise it has achieved a great deal. There are many better ways to celebrate those achievements than a picture of an aircraft carrier, for pete’s sake.

      Quote text  Reply

  31. Omar on said:

    BY: Not only is the ship a cold war relic that was on the verge of being sold-off as a floating casino, but Britain has had aircraft carriers since WWI. What exactly is Great Helmsman Andy wetting himself over here? Does he imagine it anchored in the Bristol Channel at some future date to assist in the liberation of the workers and peasants of Wiltshire?

    That’s not a negative, is it?

      Quote text  Reply

  33. Manzil on said:

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

    ~ Comrade Dwight Eisenhower

      Quote text  Reply

  34. Vanya on said:

    #33 Fair comment but: (a) this is an economy that has raised unprecedented people out of absolute poverty and (b) they apparently got it at a massively knock-down rate (the ship that is).

      Quote text  Reply

  35. Neither Wash Nor Mosh on said:

    There’s a good article in the FT today about riot at Foxconn, and more about production of iPhones etc in the second section.

    You might be able to get to read it online if you register.

    But hey, who’s interested in the workers when there’s big shiny military things to marvel at?

    I vaguely remember Marx and Engels talking about capitalism creating it’s own grave diggers. I’ve only read the first 38 volumes of the Collected Works. Perhaps the liberating power of aircraft carriers is yet to come?

      Quote text  Reply

  36. Manzil on said:

    Vanya:
    #33 Fair comment but: (a) this is an economy that has raised unprecedented people out of absolute poverty and (b) they apparently got it at a massively knock-down rate.

    Which is fantastic, don’t get me wrong.

    I just don’t think, in itself, anything like this is ever something to be particularly happy about. Although I suppose a photo of people lifted out of destitution is harder to capture than the nice big ship!

      Quote text  Reply

  37. John Grimshaw on said:

    Vanya:
    #33 Fair comment but: (a) this is an economy that has raised unprecedented people out of absolute poverty and (b) they apparently got it at a massively knock-down rate (the ship that is).

    Your second point is irony and as I said its still not got no aeros. Mind you neither have the Brits. Your first point is more serious but its all relative, Vanya. They have raised loads of Chinese people out of relative poverty, but how long has it taken? What if the Chinese CP hadn’t opposed the workers uprising in Shanghai? What if given the obvious productive forces available in China for the last 80 years they’dve used them rather than pouring them into a bunch of useless bureaucrats spending most of their time at fancy dress parties with big red stars?!?

      Quote text  Reply

  39. Andy Newman on said:

    BY: Britain has had aircraft carriers since WWI. What exactly is Great Helmsman Andy wetting himself over here?

    Very few navies have ever had aircraft carriers, becaise they are an outwards projection of military power.

    You need to understand the current military ideology of the PRC relying as it does upon two concepts:

    i) multilateral power projection
    ii) asymmetry and soft power.

    Admiral Yang Yi is particularly associated with the second, which combines cultural and economic investment, immigration and “smile diplomacy” with just enough military capability to make the cost of war against them for what they euphimistically describe as “a technologically superior adversary” to be too high.

    Multi-lateral military projection is about creating networks of sustained alliances with other states, particularly those states who value their own sovereignty. It is a vision of a “walled world” of cooperation between discrete and soverign states as opposed to globalisation through the Washington consensus, which diminishes state soverignty.

    So the PLA would not seek to build a fleet of aircraft carriers that could rival the USA, but they can use one (or maybe more in the future) carriers in the future to project Chinese support for strategic allies.

    China is playing the long game, and is significant for socialists in Europe for three reasons:

    i) the Chinese social model of a socialist government presiding over a mixed economy with a hegemonic state sector is possible the only credible socialist strategy in the world of globalised capital.
    ii) any advance towards socialism requires the defence of national economic soverignty, which itsellf requires a hegemonic state role
    iii) China exemplifies, how on the basis of such economic soveignty, win-win outcomes can be negotiated between capital and a socialist state.

    So, in very real terms, this aircraft carier is part of ” what socialism look like” in the 21st century

      Quote text  Reply

  40. Andy Newman on said:

    John Grimshaw: What if given the obvious productive forces available in China for the last 80 years they’dve used them

    Which raises the very obvious question of excatly how you think the PRc government should have behaved differently?

    I don’t mean arm waving slogans,. I mean which practical policies would you have adopted that would have been different?

      Quote text  Reply

  41. Howard Kirk on said:

    Sam64

    An address that the Chinese CP (ruling class) might make via Socialist Unity:

    Thanks to the far sighted leadership of leader to be Xi Jinping (er, no, he’s gone, palace coup) the Chinese people have made massive strides in catching up with the West. We have now surpassed the British in levels of inequality and soon we will have caught the US itself! Our emerging billionaire class is to be seen in the finest hotels and restaurants across the world, and you have heard of property acquisitions in Belgravia, Manhattan and the Champs-Elysées. Our advance cadres are even now making plans to move into the cradle of Western civilisation by buying Greek Islands. Only European legislation making such things as redundancy payments for employees prevents us from acquiring more foreign capital. Meanwhile, we offer development for African countries by infrastructural projects staffed largely by own labour and consumer ventures that are destroying smaller domestic competition.

    But we have learnt lessons from the USA, especially from the era of the 1930s: when our workers have the temerity to strike, not realising the socialist task of the ceaseless drive for profit, corrupt local officials hire small private armies of thugs to smash strikers so ensure production is not set back. And of course, Chinese workers have welfare that is second to none – well perhaps not the 50 million migrant workers who have no rights to education and health at all but that is a minor detail of history. Finally, thanks to our vigilant monitoring of the web we have no ‘socialists’ who spend their days pontificating on websites like Socialist Unity!

    —————————————————-
    Very good.

    Are there any Sparts on here? A deformed workers state or a triumph for real existing socialism?

      Quote text  Reply

  42. Jellytot on said:

    @33

    Prompting Robert Welch of The John Birch Society to write:

    “Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes….With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.”

    Welch’s great bug-bear was China’s “loss” to Western Imperialism in 1949.

    @36Although I suppose a photo of people lifted out of destitution is harder to capture than the nice big ship

    These matters are connected. Things like big ships are necessary to protect, preserve and maintain a system that oversees such wealth redistribution. In a deeply hostile world progressive governments have a right and a duty to defend themselves.

      Quote text  Reply

  43. Manzil on said:

    Jellytot:

    These matters are connected. Things like big ships are necessary to protect, preserve and maintain a system that oversees such wealth redistribution. In a deeply hostile world progressive governments have a right and a duty to defend themselves.

    Yes, I’m sure the B-52s* were warming up on the runways until this thing came off the assembly line.

    China is not in danger. Its government has made it an essential part of the global political economy, and a relatively unthreatening one for our own ruling classes. Chinese belief in the multipolar ‘walled world’ that Andy mentioned is universally accepted as sincere.

    *I have absolutely no clue about anything military-related whatsoever. I think a B-52 is/was a bomber (or maybe a smart phone?), but please don’t mock. I always change the channel when it’s a war film.

      Quote text  Reply

  44. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Andy Newman: i) the Chinese social model of a socialist government presiding over a mixed economy with a hegemonic state sector is possible the only credible socialist strategy in the world of globalised capital.

    How is this different from the policies pursued by Britain and France in the 1960s and 1970s and Japan up to the 1990s? Each of those saw a “mixed economy with a hegemonic (if by that you mean important and strategic) state sector”. Why isn’t Germany — a peaceful country which invests hugely in its peoples’ human capital, has a strong safety net and high levels of equality a better bet for a socialist strategy? Its hard to see your reasoning here.

      Quote text  Reply

  45. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Andy Newman: So the PLA would not seek to build a fleet of aircraft carriers that could rival the USA, but they can use one (or maybe more in the future) carriers in the future to project Chinese support for strategic allies.

    Like who? I think its rather more likely its to be used to cow its neighbours in their numerous territorial disputes (Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, etc). Who, exactly (aside from Pakistan and North Korea) is China’s strategic ally? Seems most of her neighbours have fought border wars with the PRC or the PRC has designs on their claimed territory.

    This post, really, reads like a Boy’s Own fantasy. Shame you missed out on being a CP member in the 70s and 80s when you’d have had the military of the Sovs to drool over.

      Quote text  Reply

  46. John on said:

    Harsanyi_Janos: How is this different from the policies pursued by Britain and France in the 1960s and 1970s

    There are certainly parallels that could be drawn, but the point you are missing completely is that this isn’t the world of the 1960s and 1970s, which simply renders your critique facile.

    We are living in a world that after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc has been dominated economically, politically, militarily, and culturally by neoliberalism. The super exploitation of the developing world, the shift to the right of social democracy in the West, the structural adjustment of national economies in response to the penetration of globalised capital are all features of the period beginning with the collapse of the SU.

    China’s emergence as an alternative economic model in the same period has played a positive role in resisting the unipolarity of the West and neoliberalism and, as Andy states, reasserting the principle of national sovereignty as a defence against both.

      Quote text  Reply

  47. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    John: There are certainly parallels that could be drawn, but the point you are missing completely is that this isn’t the world of the 1960s and 1970s, which simply renders your critique facile.

    No, it actually doesn’t. Unless Andy wants to claim that those policies failed because the world economy was actually fairly controlled back then (capital controls and fixed currencies) and can now succeed because, err, capital is far more mobile now. The rest of your post is pointless bluster.

      Quote text  Reply

  48. Jellytot on said:

    @43Yes, I’m sure the B-52s* were warming up on the runways until this thing came off the assembly line.

    Obviously not but who’s to say that things won’t change in the near future?

    The multi-billion dollar US strengthening of its base on the island of Guam plays directly into the strategy of “surrounding and constricting” the PRC. Recent new US military deals with Australia should be seen in the same light.

    Your theory about China being “an essential part of the global political economy, and a relatively unthreatening one for our own ruling classes” is beginning to fray around the edges.

      Quote text  Reply

  49. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot: were warming up on the runways until this thing came off the assembly line.

    Given that this thing was laid down by the Soviets as a aircraft carrying cruiser in 1982 and sold as a hulk to the PRC by the Ukrainians 15 years or so later; I doubt its a great threat to anyone aside from small neighbouring countries. Which is what she seems to be for.

      Quote text  Reply

  51. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot: “an essential part of the global political economy

    JT, if you read the Wall Street Journal and the FT; you’d see that certainly a great many businessmen seem to think that it is. Of course, that might just be upper class false consciousness.

      Quote text  Reply

  52. jim mclean on said:

    Could sail it up the Yellow River to frighten the shit out of the Foxconn strikers who seem to be handling themselves quite well against the company goons.

      Quote text  Reply

  53. Jellytot on said:

    @49Given that this thing was laid down by the Soviets as a aircraft carrying cruiser in 1982 and sold as a hulk to the PRC by the Ukrainians 15 years or so later; I doubt its a great threat to anyone aside from small neighbouring countries. Which is what she seems to be for.

    I would guess that it’s been gutted and completely re-fitted and would possess some fairly up-to-date electronics and communications/weapons systems to serve it’s purpose as a command and control centre (a major role for a modern aircraft carrier).

    However, I think it’s main role will be for training and evaluation in preparation for future Chinese designed and built carriers.

      Quote text  Reply

  56. jack on said:

    Such cynicism on display here. What with cuts and racism and jobs going down the drain, at least China’s first aircraft carrier has been delivered to the Navy of the Chinese People’s Liberation And such lovely white uniforms as well.

      Quote text  Reply

  57. Jellytot on said:

    @55I’m not sure that I take this very seriously. Do you?

    It’s a campaign advert appealing to sinophobic impulses that the Republican Party are currently running in swing states. Therefore, I take it very seriously. They obviously do.

      Quote text  Reply

  59. jim mclean on said:

    They are building two Aircraft Carriers on the Forth, they will probably be scrapped. They are also building a new forth Bridge, all the steel is coming from China. Despite a new steel plant being built a few miles along the road. (SNP policy is it seems Scottish jobs for Chinese people.) How about a straight swap, New Chinese built Forth Bridge for New Aircraft Carriers.

      Quote text  Reply

  61. John Grimshaw on said:

    Military officers stand onboard China’s aircraft carrier “Liaoning” in Dalian, northeast China’s Liaoning Province, Sept. 25, 2012.

    Just noticed. “Military Officers” in the photo op. Where are the ordinary punters of the glorious People’s Liberation Navy thingy? :)

      Quote text  Reply

  62. jim mclean on said:

    John Grimshaw:
    #59 Trouble is Chinese bridges have an unhappy habit of falling down all the time.

    Well the SNP Government were warned about the quality aspect of Chinese steel. Said it was out of their hands as the American consortium in charge can give out the contracts to whoever they want. Bit annoyed at the moment, they are digging up the fields where I take the dog a walk. Sending the coal by train to a power station in Yorkshire. No coal left in Yorkshire?

      Quote text  Reply

  63. John Grimshaw on said:

    The Daily Record says that the steel contract for the bridge was given to Chinese, Spanish and Polish companies. The steel union Community has complained and the Labour Party is outraged. The SNP has said its not their fault as not a single Scottish steel firm bid for the contract. They say that Scottish steel production has been so degraded by Westminster over the years that no local firms could deal with the contract. Blah, blah, blah etc.

      Quote text  Reply

  66. jim mclean on said:

    John Grimshaw:
    The Daily Record says that the steel contract for the bridge was given to Chinese, Spanish and Polish companies. The steel union Community has complained and the Labour Party is outraged. The SNP has said its not their fault as not a single Scottish steel firm bid for the contract. They say that Scottish steel production has been so degraded by Westminster over the years that no local firms could deal with the contract. Blah, blah, blah etc.

    Indian Company TATA invested millions in Scotland in the hope of getting part of the contract as head of a consortium, there is conflict on who bid and who didn’t. Oh well hope the new South Korean tankers or whatever type of boat it is the MOD have ordered are seaworthy.

      Quote text  Reply

  67. John Grimshaw on said:

    ““News that people in the advert were ‘actors’ and not genuinely unemployed had leaked and Healed said the Conservatives were dishonest, reaching a new low by ‘selling politics like soap-powder’.”

    Whats healed? :)

      Quote text  Reply

  68. Entdinglichung on said:

    Neither Wash Nor Mosh:

    I vaguely remember Marx and Engels talking about capitalism creating it’s own grave diggers. I’ve only read the first 38 volumes of the Collected Works. Perhaps the liberating power of aircraft carriers is yet to come?

    see volume 43 … and probably also in a future volume of the collected works of Kim Jong-un

      Quote text  Reply

  70. Howard Kirk on said:

    Harsanyi_Janos: Given that this thing was laid down by the Soviets as a aircraft carrying cruiser in 1982 and sold as a hulk to the PRC by the Ukrainians 15 years or so later; I doubt its a great threat to anyone aside from small neighbouring countries. Which is what she seems to be for.

    Was the middleman a guy with a yellow three wheel van called Del Boy?

      Quote text  Reply

  74. Dr Paul on said:

    The lack of a half-way decent aviation industry has been one of China’s less impressive achievements. An aircraft carrier without any suitable aeroplanes is a white elephant. Why Comrade Newman wants to spend time on news of this ship — basically a refurbished old banger — is somewhat of a mystery.

      Quote text  Reply

  75. Jellytot on said:

    @72 + @74

    Pathetic “Yellow Peril” Western sneering at the struggle of a developing nation to modernise.

    The Chinese Armed Forces are a work-in-progress and supplement the PRC’s strategic and progressive vision so clearly explained by Andy in #39 above.

      Quote text  Reply

  76. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot: It’s a campaign advert appealing to sinophobic impulses that the Republican Party are currently running in swing states.

    You miss my meaning — of course its designed to China-bash. However; I do not take this to mean that Mitt Romney, the Republican Party, and American businessmen are going to change their practices of relying on China as a source of cheap(and cheaper) goods. I doubt that you do either. Or do you believe that Romney has had a late-in-life conversion?

      Quote text  Reply

  77. Pinkie on said:

    “Pathetic “Yellow Peril” Western sneering at the struggle of a developing nation to modernise.”

    Didn’t quite spot the “Yellow Peril” sneering, Jellytot, perhaps you could explain. Perhaps you could also explain how the acquisition of an aircraft carrier without aircraft represents “the struggle of a developing nation to modernise”?

    This web-site gets weirder by the minute.

      Quote text  Reply

  78. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Its not so weird Pinkie. The keenness on China has two roots

    For some, the PRC is the only possible opposition to the (now waning) role of the USA as self-appointed global policeman. In the past, this role was played by the USSR. Thus those who describe themselves as anti-imperialists are pleased to see China arming herself (even if that leads to a regional arms race) and are delighted by Chinese involvement in Africa (even if Africans are sometimes less keen) and it involves cosying up to, say, Sudan.

    For others, the PRC is now the only “communist” country of any importance so many are happy to overlook the fact that it isnt communist at all, and scarcely socialist. This includes all the remnants of the old CP including the “anti-revisionist” of the NCP who thought the Sovs had gone soft. I find this type the most annoying as I am old enough to recall the NCP’s criticisms of the USSR but now see the NCP overlooking the PRC having a stock market, billionaires, and massive income inequality.

      Quote text  Reply

  79. Pinkie on said:

    This silly article makes me wonder why Andy Newman hasn’t thrown in his lot with the confused CPB or even the NCP. Fish and ponds, I guess.

    Fucking embarrassing that a ‘Socialist Unity’ site should celebrate the state of China buying a big useless ship.

      Quote text  Reply

  81. Jellytot on said:

    @77Didn’t quite spot the “Yellow Peril” sneering, Jellytot, perhaps you could explain.

    A standard right wing trope in recent decades is that Chinese manufactured goods are “junk” and of poor quality. Also it’s the standard narrative that the Chinese are incapable to inventing or developing anything original and merely “steal” ideas from the (presumably superior White) West (see Romney’s new ad). The popularity and frequency of this barely concealed racism has run concurrent with the increasing success of the reforms since 1992; a success that the majority of Chinese are benefitting from.

    Interestingly, these same charges used to be aimed at Japan during it’s post-war rise in the 60′s and 70′s (previous to this, in the 50′s, Japan was mainly known as a producer of cheap toys). The big diffence being that Japan was and is firmly in the Western orbit while the PRC certainly isn’t.

    I shouldn’t be suprised to read Eurocentric Trotskyites engaging in their usual tailing of the Right in repeating these falsehoods. It must be so galling for these glorious fucking failures to see a Communist Party actually succeeding.

    @78Thus those who describe themselves as anti-imperialists are pleased to see China arming herself (even if that leads to a regional arms race)

    And in your view, the blame for this so-called “arms race” would be the PRC’s ?

      Quote text  Reply

  82. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot: And in your view, the blame for this so-called “arms race” would be the PRC’s ?

    If China invests heavily in arms and that leads to her neighbours’ also investing heavily in arms: an arms race (no need for scare quotes) then, yes, the cause of said arms race would be the PRC.

    You see it differently no doubt and think that Vietnam (invaded by China in I believe 1978), the Philippines (currently with border dispute with China), India (invaded by China in 1962), Japan (currently with border dispute with China) should simply bow down before her “progressive” might?

      Quote text  Reply

  83. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot: Interestingly, these same charges used to be aimed at Japan during it’s post-war rise in the 60′s and 70′s (previous to this, in the 50′s, Japan was mainly known as a producer of cheap toys). The big diffence being that Japan was and is firmly in the Western orbit while the PRC certainly isn’t.

    Yes, quite true. Today’s China scare stories are near identical to the 1980s’ Japan scare stories. Of course, as you say, Japan was not outside the “Western orbit” so it could not rely on “socialists” to extol its state-led development as a glorious new model to follow and to encourage it to increase its military spending.

      Quote text  Reply

  85. Pinkie on said:

    Jellytot, whatever may have been said of manufactured goods from Japan or China this has nothing to do with China buying a big useless boat and Socialist Unity celebrating that fact.

      Quote text  Reply

  86. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    As for JT’s taking Romney’s late in life conversion to China-bashing “seriously”; it seems that his opponent views it as a transparent sham: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/usa-campaign-obama-idINL1E8KQ2RM20120926

    “”He’s been talking tough on China,” Obama said in a speech at Bowling Green State University. “When you hear you this newfound outrage, when you see these ads he’s running promising to get tough on China, it feels a lot like that fox saying, ‘You know, we need more secure chicken coops.’”"

      Quote text  Reply

  87. Jellytot on said:

    @82You see it differently no doubt and think that Vietnam (invaded by China in I believe 1978), the Philippines (currently with border dispute with China), India (invaded by China in 1962), Japan (currently with border dispute with China) should simply bow down before her “progressive” might?

    It’s notable, but not surprising, that you seem to show knee-jerk support and sympathy to whoever is in dispute with the PRC – Presumably that support would extend to the thousands of US troops stationed in Japan and Korea in places like Sasebo ?

    bow down

    We should be gratful, at least, that you didn’t use the term kow-tow.

    BTW Why do you find China’s growing independence so threatening?

    @84As I noted above, China’s role in Africa is cooly received by at least some

    A neutral and balanced view can be obtained from the excellent book:

    The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa by Deborah Brautigam

    @85China buying a big useless boat and Socialist Unity celebrating that fact.

    It’s silly to describe it as “useless”. It will be used to train personell and devise tactics in preparation for a much expanded future Chinese navy; a navy with an increased global role.

      Quote text  Reply

  88. Harsanyi_Janos on said:

    Jellytot,

    I think I’m done responding to you JT; you refuse to address any criticisms of your views and of the PRC and instead rely on cheap shots (“kow tow”) and obvious misreadings of what others write.

    Before signing off from this “discussion” I will note that no-where did I express “knee-jerk support and sympathy to whoever is in dispute with the PRC”. I merely noted that China has attacked two of her neighbours within memory and has disputes with others. Thus, that her neighbours have reason to not accept arms build-ups with equanimity.

    I have no view as to who should hold the various territories that China disputes with others. However, invasion (of Vietnam and India) is not, in my view, the way to solve these disputes.

    I have no problem with China’s economic growth — I view it as greatly positive, most of all for the Chinese. I do, however, have a general view that increased spending on weapons is not a wonderful thing and that celebrating militarism (in any state) is not desirable.

    I will leave the thread to you now.

      Quote text  Reply

  89. Jellytot on said:

    @88 I do, however, have a general view that increased spending on weapons is not a wonderful thing and that celebrating militarism (in any state) is not desirable.

    It is not us who are ‘misreading of what others write’.

    We do not regard increased military spending as, somehow, wonderful but have merely sought to place it in its correct geo-political context and seek to understand why it is occuring. Post #39 has done this brilliantly.

    It is not us who are engaging in ‘cheap shots’ and promoting some fairly shabby sinophobic stereotypes.

    @88Thus, that her neighbours have reason to not accept arms build-ups with equanimity.

    Well, maybe, if her neighbours didn’t have security pacts with and provide bases to the most rapacious Imperial power on Earth, tensions in the area would lessen?

      Quote text  Reply

  90. Charles Dexter Ward on said:

    Andy Newman: the standard trope of the sinophobe.

    I can’t believe you have the gall to chuck that at me after posting THAT photograph. There are people on the left who don’t worship militarism.

      Quote text  Reply

  92. Vanya on said:

    Interesting that it seems that as the British government is attacking rights of poorer people to the law, in China they are looking at increasing the legal aid budget, as well as introducing long overdue reforms in terms of the rights of defendants and their legal representation in the criminal justice system.

    (Based on reading today’s Morning Star and I haven’t had the chance to read further but maybe someone else may have more details).

      Quote text  Reply

  95. jack ford on said:

    John Grimshaw,

    The blog is describing how China might inflict a military defeat on the US in the future so I thought it was relevant to a thread on the new Chinese century. The blog is written by a real Druid but that needn’t detract from the issues discussed here. As it happens the blog is an interesting source on a number of issues mainly Peak Oil but also a powerful analysis of American politics.

    Anyway the saga continues

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-three-to-brink.html

      Quote text  Reply

  97. jack ford on said:

    I think there’s no question that the economic policies pursued by the Chinese dictatorship have been better for its people than those of the corrupt Indian democracy. This is painful for democrats and liberals to accept but it happens to be the truth.

      Quote text  Reply

  99. Communal Award on said:

    jack ford:
    Of course the human rights record of China is nothing to be proud of. But nor is that of India. Just ask the Dalits or the Kashmiris. Or the huge number of Indian children suffering from malnutrician

    India is an **uncivilized** nation for your girl child.

    As per National Crime Records Bureau, every 22 minutes a rape is committed in India and out of which 30% are against minors.

    1. The conviction rate is below 25%.
    2. Police refuse to register victim’s complaint.
    3. Insane politicians are saying gang-rape is consensual sex.
    4. Rapist family members visit victim’s house to show off their hegemony.
    http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapters.htm

    As per Congressman Trent Franks House Concurrent Resolution 139, I request Obama Administration to direct New Delhi regime to create an Independent nation for 300 million India’s untouchables.
    http://wh.gov/Bo5w

      Quote text  Reply

  100. General Strike on said:

    # 99

    Then I guess Britain is equally “uncivilized”, given that this is a country where a famous man can commit child abuse and rape for decades, with a lot of people apparently suspecting or knowing about it, and get away with it completely. Sexism, misogyny, and rape are huge problems in most, if not all, countries. Don’t use it as a pretext for racism.

    Also, that petition is bizarre. What possible right could the president of the US have to demand another partition of India? If that was what most Dalits want it would be for them to say, not American politicians. And didn’t they create the term “dalit” (translated as “oppressed”) because they object to being called “untouchables”?

      Quote text  Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>