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.

  • immi [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

      • immi [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • robinn [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

    • robinn [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      "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.