Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Chinese people support their government for good reasons

Posted 8 years ago on March 12, 2012, 3:26 p.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



I.H.T. OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Counterpoint: Debunking Myths About China By ERIC X. LI Published: July 18, 2011 RECOMMEND TWITTER LINKEDIN SIGN IN TO E-MAIL PRINT REPRINTS SHARE SHANGHAI — On these pages on July 1, two prominent China watchers — David Shambaugh (“China’s Communist Party at 90”) and Minxin Pei (“Great party, but where’s the Communism?”) — analyzed the failures and challenges of the party as it faces a major leadership transition in 2012. Eric X. Li, a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs, joins the debate.

The Chinese Communist Party has been running the largest country in the world for 62 years. How has it done?

We all know the facts: In 1949 when the Communist Party took over, China had been mired in civil wars and dismembered by foreign aggressions; its people had suffered widespread famine; average life-expectancy was a mere 41 years. Today, it is the second largest economy in the world, a great power with global influence, and its people live in increasing prosperity; average life expectancy has reached 74 years.

But the assessment has to go deeper than that, for reasons none other than the apparent discomfort, if not outright disapproval, Western political and intellectual elites feel toward the Communist Party’s leadership. Five misconceptions dominate the Western media’s discourse on China. These misunderstandings need to be debunked by realities.

China does not hold elections, therefore its rulers do not have the consent of the ruled. According to the Pew Research Center, the Chinese government enjoys popular support that is among the highest in the world. The Chinese people’s satisfaction with the direction of their country was at 87 percent in 2010 and has been consistently above 80 percent in recent years. Sixty-six percent perceive progress in their lives in the last five years. A whopping 74 percent are optimistic about the next five years.

We need to ask: How do most governments produced by elections compare with these numbers? Are elections the only viable way to validate consent and the legitimacy it brings?

China is an authoritarian state in which the party’s political power is concentrated and self-perpetuating. The Communist Party’s Politburo, the highest ruling body, consists of 25 members. Currently, only seven of them come from any background of wealth or power, the so-called princelings. The rest of them, including the president and the prime minister, come from ordinary backgrounds with no special advantages. They worked and competed all the way to the top. In the larger Central Committee, those with privileged backgrounds are even scarcer.

A visit to any top university campus in China would make it obvious to anyone that the Communist Party continues to attract the best and the brightest of the country’s youth. In fact, China’s Communist Party may be one of the most meritocratic and upwardly mobile major political organizations in the world — far more meritocratic than the ruling elites of most Western countries and the vast majority of developing countries. What is wrong with self-perpetuation through merits?

• China’s restriction on freedom of expression stifles innovation. China no doubt restricts freedom of expression, especially political speech. But does that impede innovation in Chinese society?

Some of the most successful IPO’s of Internet companies on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq have been Chinese startups. Chinese businesses are well on their way to dominating the global alternative-energy industries. Breakthroughs in public policy have taken private home ownership from near zero in 1990 to at least 80 percent today — among the world’s highest, in this relatively still poor country.

The Royal Society in London reports that China’s share of scientific research papers published in recognized international journals went from 4.4 percent in the period between 1999-2003 to 10.2 percent in the period between 2004-2008, now just behind the United States. In 2008, China overtook France as the world’s number three in contemporary art auction revenues. Fifteen out of 35 living artists worldwide who command seven-digit sales for their work are Chinese. If these facts do not demonstrate innovation, what does?

• The Communist Party’s authoritarian rule leads to widespread corruption. No one, not least the party itself, disputes that corruption is a significant problem in China. But does authoritarian rule have anything to do with it?

According to Transparency International, the top 20 cleanest (least corrupt) places worldwide include only four non-Western governments: Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar and Japan — three of the four are authoritarian regimes; the same three are the only ones that belong to the developing world. By Transparency International’s account, China (78) ranks higher than India (87), Philippines (134), Indonesia (110), Argentina (105) and many more, and tied with Greece (78), barely below Italy (67) — all electoral democracies. Apparently, China’s one-party system is less corrupt than many democratic countries.

China’s success to date is all due to the party’s embrace of capitalism and a market economy. According to the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal annual ranking of free economies, China ranks 135. Developing countries that rank above China (showing a stronger embrace of capitalism and a market economy) include Haiti, Algeria, Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya, Rwanda — the list goes on. If market economic reform was the only magic China performed, how come many other countries that have implemented a market economy much earlier and deeper than China have not achieved much economic success? What else has China done?

Hypotheses that do not stand up to facts and yet still dominate people’s consciousness are specious and harmful. It is especially dangerous in this case because one cannot imagine a peaceful world order when the political and intellectual establishment of today’s world powers holds views that are built on falsehoods.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

The Chinese people support their government for good reasons...Ya, otherwise they'd get arrested.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Yup. the last time was in 1989 in a little place called Tiananmen Square. Somewhere between 800 and 2000 people were killed because they didn't fully express their love and support.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

A friend of mine returned from China recently. He said the pollution and crowding was unbearable and labor lived in cramped generic shelters. Add to that the melamine poison in their baby formula and i-pod factory workers losing the permanent use of their hands from repetitive motion, the internet being censored and controlled, workers dying in unregulated mines, officials confiscating and selling off peoples land...certainly China is no example of paradise or even progress.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

I beg to differ. Right it's no paradise, wrong on progress - they're making great strides and the people know it and appreciate it. And the people have successfully waged labor strikes that won wage hikes and struggles against land seizures that won a notable victory. When has that happened here? And life gets better and better for more and more Chinese.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

I don't disagree, but I also don't attribute successful labor strikes to an embrace of capitalism and a market economy. That has more to do with the advancement of information technology and the desire for justice. Democracy is on the march all over the world. That being said, I was wrong to say China was not an example of progress.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

It's not quite capitalism they have in China. When was the lst successful labor strike in the USA?


(I'm not associated with workers world but I find the explanation of what the system is in China useful)

Stern, Marx and the workers Why China has planning and the U.S. doesn’t

By Deirdre Griswold Published Dec 6, 2011 9:21 PM Andy Stern, former head of the giant Service Employees union in the United States, recently visited China as part of a delegation organized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation and the Center for American Progress. Stern, knowing very well that U.S. workers are in the midst of a long-term crisis of unemployment that shows no letup, was highly impressed with the goals of China’s 12th five-year plan, which were explained to the visiting group by high-ranking Chinese officials.

As he wrote in an op-ed column published Dec. 1 in no less than the Wall Street Journal, entitled “China’s Superior Economic Model,” China is aiming for “a 7 percent annual economic growth rate; a $640 billion investment in renewable energy; construction of 6 million homes; and expanding next-generation IT [information technology], clean-energy vehicles, biotechnology, high-end manufacturing and environmental protection — all while promoting social equity and rural development.”

Stern did not scoff at these projections, nor did the pre-eminent newspaper of U.S. capitalism add any skeptical words. They both know from experience that China does not fall below its growth projections. On the contrary, it often exceeds them. Meanwhile, the capitalist world is reeling from crisis to crisis.

Stern said, “Our delegation witnessed China’s people-oriented development in Chongqing, a city of 32 million in Western China, which is led by an aggressive and popular Communist Party leader — Bo Xilai. A skyline of cranes are building roughly 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily — including, our delegation was told, 700,000 units of public housing annually. Meanwhile, the Chinese government can boast that it has established in Western China an economic zone for cloud computing and automotive and aerospace production resulting in 12.5 percent annual growth and 49 percent growth in annual tax revenue, with wages rising more than 10 percent a year.”

Stern knows how difficult it is for U.S. unions to negotiate even a 1 percent raise in the present economic environment. And he knows how every public service and program is being cut back right now.

Stern quotes from Intel chairperson Andy Grove, a big U.S. capitalist, and Asia Society head Orville Schell, a leading bourgeois intellectual, to argue that the “free-market model” so highly touted for years in this country needs “modification.” Finally he puts forward his own proposal: “America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with a streamlined government as a partner with the private sector.”

Lack of planning, he says, is the reason the U.S. is falling behind.

By writing this piece for the Wall Street Journal rather than a union or working-class newspaper, Stern is clearly appealing to U.S. capitalists to alter their thinking and embrace government planning for their own good. He even accedes to their demands for a “streamlined” government — meaning layoffs and budget cuts — probably hoping this will help win them over.

Unfortunately, he is spitting in the wind.

What makes planning possible?

It’s not that capitalist governments are incapable of planning. Even the U.S. government has an energy plan, a transportation plan, a plan to remodel health insurance, a plan to devise many new weapons systems, a plan to build more prisons, etc. Of course these plans are woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing the huge problems of unemployment, environmental degradation, a crumbling infrastructure and so on.

What the U.S. capitalist government does not have, and cannot have, is an overall plan for the economic development of the country. Yet that is exactly what China does have. So why is China so different from all the capitalist countries now experiencing financial and economic crises?

China allows capitalism to exist — it has stock markets, private ownership of some of the means of production, a growing bourgeoisie, and many social features of capitalism, like a big income gap between rich and poor. But it also has state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, especially the major banks, as well as the industries vital to China’s infrastructure.

That is not the only difference, however. The Chinese state was born out of an earthshaking revolution, led by communists, that continued for decades and mobilized the masses of people to change society on a scale never reached anywhere else. In the 62 years of its existence, this state has been affected by internal struggles, by the growth of the bourgeoisie and also by the pressure of the masses. It has made many accommodations to the “capitalist roaders,” but it has not been overthrown or replaced with a capitalist state. Fundamental institutions, such as massive society-wide government planning for human and social need, remain intact.

China can produce a five-year plan that works because it is not a capitalist state. It can in a few years rebuild an ancient city like Chonqing into a huge and mostly modern metropolis the size of Maine, with 32 million people, because it is not shackled with a political structure run entirely by privately owned banks and real estate interests.

Contrast this with New York City, where it has taken 10 years just to begin rebuilding the area of downtown Manhattan destroyed in the 9/11 attacks and where high rents and lack of public housing leave an untold number homeless, especially in the oppressed Black and Latino/a communities. New York has no lack of construction machinery or skilled workers. What it lacks is a government that uses socialist planning to respond to the needs of the people in crucial areas of life rather than to the financiers, the landlords and the speculators.

Profits at highest level ever

The capitalist ruling class in the U.S. has reached a peak in its ability to siphon off the wealth of society. This was illustrated most graphically in new government figures on the economy reported in the Nov. 25 New York Times (“Off the Charts: For Business, Golden Days; For Workers, the Dross”).

The figures show that in the third quarter of this year, for the first time ever, the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that went to companies in the form of after-tax profits exceeded 10 percent.

In the same period, the share of the GDP that represents wages and salaries fell below 45 percent, also for the first time ever. And this decline occurred even though the government lumps together workers’ wages with the six- and even seven-figure salaries of the highest executives, which are once again on the rise.

What this shows is that capitalism is working exactly the way it is supposed to: it is accumulating capital in the hands of the already very rich, which means it is extracting surplus value from the hides of the workers as never before. Karl Marx rigorously proved a century and a half ago in his three-volume study of capitalism called “Capital” that the increasing accumulation of profit is rooted in the very essence of capitalist production and cannot be overcome by anything but the organized, militant struggle of the workers themselves.

The workers need a planned economy, not the chaotic and cruel one that capitalism imposes on them, where wars follow recessions and the race for profits never ends. Workers need their talents to be used to build up society, not grow the fortunes of a few. The achievement of a planned economy — a socialist economy — is a job that only they can carry through, not the CEOs of Intel or Chase Manhattan or any other representatives of the exploiting class.

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news DONATE

[-] 0 points by OWSJesus (20) 8 years ago

China is the appointed promised land, for I have saith.

Now you folks refrain from making more than ONE baby and this do only if you know you can raise it better than you were raised, for I again have saith.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

China still has a fertility rate higher than Europe's. Had China not got a handle on what was a runaway population growth it never would have developed as it is now doing, and Chinese women would not be advancing the way they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Progress_in_promoting_equality http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+fertility+rate


[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

China now has 30 million more men than women because of that law. The rest of the world is going to just love it when China decides to expand its territory again because they need more women. Most of the world still wants them to get out of Tibet. China is an authoritarian dictatorship that happens to be the best friend of multinational corporations and hip-deep in the same corruption that besets the western world. Not to mention their rampant theft of every piece of intellectual property they can get their hands on, as a matter of official policy! They stole their way to growth. Nothing new on earth about that, but hardly noble.

No, my brother. Pretty propaganda but no.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Female infanticide is a hidden "genocide" that happens in many places and that includes China from way way back. What can be said for China is that it has moved millions of people out of poverty and continues to do so. Less poverty and greater development means less horrible social problems.The gender gap isn't new in China and they haven't invaded other countries to take either land, resources or women.


Case Study: Female Infanticide Focus: (1) India (2) China


The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.

The background

"Female infanticide is the intentional killing of baby girls due to the preference for male babies and from the low value associated with the birth of females." (Marina Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) It should be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of infanticide, which has also targeted the physically or mentally handicapped, and infant males (alongside infant females or, occasionally, on a gender-selective basis). As with maternal mortality, some would dispute the assigning of infanticide or female infanticide to the category of "genocide" or, as here, "gendercide." Nonetheless, the argument advanced in the maternal mortality case-study holds true in this case as well: governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement, as by direct murder. R.J. Rummel buttresses this view, referring to infanticide as

another type of government killing whose victims may total millions ... In many cultures, government permitted, if not encouraged, the killing of handicapped or female infants or otherwise unwanted children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters. Among 79 families, nearly as many had one child as two. Among all there were only 28 daughters to 118 sons. ... But classical Greece was not unusual. In eighty-four societies spanning the Renaissance to our time, "defective" children have been killed in one-third of them. In India, for example, because of Hindu beliefs and the rigid caste system, young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When demographic statistics were first collected in the nineteenth century, it was discovered that in "some villages, no girl babies were found at all; in a total of thirty others, there were 343 boys to 54 girls. ... [I]n Bombay, the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603." Rummel adds: "Instances of infanticide ... are usually singular events; they do not happen en masse. But the accumulation of such officially sanctioned or demanded murders comprises, in effect, serial massacre. Since such practices were so pervasive in some cultures, I suspect that the death toll from infanticide must exceed that from mass sacrifice and perhaps even outright mass murder." (Rummel, Death by Government, pp. 65-66.)

Focus (1): India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death." Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil Nadu:

Lakshmi already had one daughter, so when she gave birth to a second girl, she killed her. For the three days of her second child's short life, Lakshmi admits, she refused to nurse her. To silence the infant's famished cries, the impoverished village woman squeezed the milky sap from an oleander shrub, mixed it with castor oil, and forced the poisonous potion down the newborn's throat. The baby bled from the nose, then died soon afterward. Female neighbors buried her in a small hole near Lakshmi's square thatched hut of sunbaked mud. They sympathized with Lakshmi, and in the same circumstances, some would probably have done what she did. For despite the risk of execution by hanging and about 16 months of a much-ballyhooed government scheme to assist families with daughters, in some hamlets of ... Tamil Nadu, murdering girls is still sometimes believed to be a wiser course than raising them. "A daughter is always liabilities. How can I bring up a second?" Lakshmi, 28, answered firmly when asked by a visitor how she could have taken her own child's life eight years ago. "Instead of her suffering the way I do, I thought it was better to get rid of her." (All quotes from Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.")

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

And China was rescued from a Russia like fate- kleptocracy, rampant oligarchy, American manipulation of elections, poverty, despair. At such a relatively low cost of human life.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Now that is very true, 5440! Communist Party induced deaths were primarily the effect of Mao - and even that did not match Stalin's purges which were primarily directed at the Party, killing off so many of its best and brightest - Bukharin, Kirov, Tukhachevsky etc.

The difficulty for China however lies in the continuation of its NEP, i.e. whether the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) will ultimately be taken over by the emergent capitalists in the country, which, most threateningly, comprise many communist officials.

This is why I speak of an elective caste system, because for someone to be part of the rulership of a country AND AT THE SAME TIME be a landowner and/or a capitalist represents a conflict of interests which can readily destroy China.

I am not saying this to compare China negatively with the USA, since, obviously, USA's own politicians are predominantly (at least at the upper levels) landowners and capitalists. In the USA of course these latter already rule, but should China fall into the same trap, a resulting WW3 due to the scramble to acquire diminishing resources, will be severe indeed.

Happily China is involved in nuclear research etc. but major breakthrus on the energy front have not occurred. The reason for this is not merely lack of investment (in the USA) but the culture of science itself - specifically physics, since proper physical understanding is required to make any breakthrus on the energy front.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

"The difficulty for China however lies in the continuation of its NEP, i.e. whether the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) will ultimately be taken over by the emergent capitalists in the country, which, most threateningly, comprise many communist officials."

There's the rub.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Exactly! And that is why I keep emphasizing that the tasks performed by different people are mutually antagonistic. The boss wants the workers to work for nothing. The workers want to get as much money as they can per unit of work and not be overworked.

Who decides the working hours and remuneration? How is inflation to be controlled etc. etc.?

These issues cannot be pasted over (Chomsky) or bureaucratized (Stalin) - but have to be kept in the open since they cannot be solved by democratic voting involving each and every factory. An elective caste system works by putting bosses and workers into different castes - but putting further castes ABOVE the bosses.

This is why an elective caste system will NOT be a capitalist-run system even though it has capitalists.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

At relatively little cost of life? Are you fucking kidding me? 2000 people murdered for asking to have a LITTLE more say in what government does, a LITTLE more say in how their lives must be lived? Moron, those protesters were the OWS of China. Your blithe dismissal of their murders, if applied to the US, means you would condone our government's murder of US. OWS demands freedom of speech. You have no problem with the government killing those who dare open their mouths.

Is the genocide of 1.5 million Tibetans is little? What about about the nearly 80 million that China killed in its modern incarnation? Is that minor? It is the single largest genocide in human history, more than Hitler and Stalin's COMBINED.

Fuck you and your disregard for the value of human life. You should have been among the victims, the tortured, the imprisoned without charges or trials or the pretense of justice, then say how you feel about those. numbers . Asshole.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

(Quoting epa1nter's famous last words below).

You sure would be a GOLD-MEDALLIST, epa1nter ...

"Fuck you and your disregard for the value of human life. You should have been among the victims etc. etc...."

... if indignation were an Olympic event!!!!!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

If being a complete asshole were an Olympic event, the medal would be yours.


[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Having taught English in China for a year, I once had a student stand up in class and give a long speech about how he thought Mao was a "devil". The other students, including communist party members, just shrugged as if to say "so what". Repression there is not so bad as people think.

Certainly there are some extreme instances, but for 99% of the people who live in the big cities, life is not too different from life in the US.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

Sure if you discount being censored and arrested. Are you a fan of China or capitalism...I'm getting mixed signals here.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Having lived there for a year, I never saw or heard of anyone being censored or arrested. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but for most people, life is normal.

I am a fan of China, because of the particular kind of capitalism it is beginning to practice. Its a kind of "worker's capitalism" unlike the "finance capitalism" now practiced in the west. Its what is allowing China to grow, while we fall back.

There is censorship and arrest of the innocent in the US too. I think OWS protestors must be aware of this.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

"worker's capitalism"? where do you get this stuff? The place is infamous for it's sweatshops.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

That's true, but the Chinese government is trying to move away from the low wage model, but it takes time.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

I heard Apple has hired an outside auditor to investigate the extreme conditions it is subjecting its Chinese workers to. I'm not dissing the fact the China is making some human rights progress, but it is not about capitalism, it is about growing as a nation and the pressure placed on China by more civilized nations.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

If you wish to know the perspective of the Chinese government on these issues, I suggest looking at the following site:


Use the search field at the top to research any topic. One article I found says that there is a growing shortage of workers for sweatshop style jobs:

Lesson of labor crisis http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-02/22/c_13183061.htm

It claims:

"...the country's efforts to develop the underdeveloped central and western regions have paid off. So have the central government policies to promote domestic consumption. The accelerated urbanization and industrialization in the inland areas have created an increasing number of jobs.

As a result, they can absorb a larger percentage of rural labor and rural villagers do not need to travel thousands of miles for a job in the developed coastal regions. Even if they are paid a little less than in the Pearl River Delta cities, the living costs are much lower to work near their homes.

So for those factories in such coastal regions as the Pearl River Delta, they must now think about making their jobs more attractive to migrant workers. The factories used to be notorious for providing villager-turned-workers with horrible working and living conditions. Some were sweatshops that made workers work extra hours without extra pay. Some kept workers' payment in arrears at the end of a year for fear that they would not come back."

I think the Chinese government has been making efforts to improve China's economy, including working conditions, regardless of the west. "Free trade" was originally a western form of economics. It was responsible for slavery in the US, and played a major role in the establishment of sweatshops in China.

"Workers capitalism" is a competing form of western economics, examples would be the development of high paid, high skilled workers by FDR's and JFK's policies. I think the Chinese are making their own efforts to transition towards this form of capitalism.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

I hope you are right! China is changing.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Yes, I think the idea here is that just by creating more employment, a competition for workers is created, which requires employers to improve working conditions.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Very good arturo! Thank you for your links. You may also be interested in my other postings on this thread.

We are still looking and striving towards post-capitalist forms of government - and the approaches to be used by each country will be very different.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Thanks for your comments. I think that what I am advocating, however, is not an alternative to capitalism, but an alternative kind of capitalism. The kind of capitalism causing so much havoc in the world today is the free trade, globalization, English empire form of capitalism.

Workers capitalism, or industrial capitalism, developed in the US as an alternative to finance capitalism, another name for free trade capitalism. Its now arising in China as an alternative to globalization there.

If you are interested in nuclear research, you may want to read this article on a "plasma furnace" being developed in China to process nuclear waste:


[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Thank you for this new link arturo. I also follow the plasma work being carried out by Eric Lerner and colleagues at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, NJ i.e. focus fusion that promises to convert boron and hydrogen into helium without producing free neutrons (i.e. the really dangerous form of radioactivity). Hopefully the Chinese are following his progress and he theirs!

I am interested in your idea of "workers' capitalism" and presume it is some recent innovation rather than a trend dating from around the New Deal, though there was some experimentation then.

There were many workerist experiments in other countries in the 19th century e.g. the Owenites in Britain, but all of them were swallowed up in the expansion of finance capitalism.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Yes, aneutronic fusion is probably the way to go because neutronic fusion has the problem of collecting the kinetic energy from the neutrons. Aneutronic fusion has the much easier problem of collecting the kinetic energy from the more massive alpha particles that tend NOT to turn things radioactive as much as neutrons. Anode rays can achieve extremely high speed so focused anode rays of protons can be an option. The activation energy of aneutronic fusion in boron is much higher than the deuterium-tritium fusion and almost all the countries are focusing on the D-T fusion but the well-traveled roads almost NEVER yield anything valuable.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

sound like a job for Super Collider and his megnatrons

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

No, many particle accelerators consume vastly more energy than they produce through their particle collisions. CERN, for example, takes months to cool down their superconductors to near absolute zero and keep them there. There have to be huge heat-sucking machines doing that. We are aiming for the density of beams of protons and the efficiency of extraction of fusion-produced products to make aneutronic fusion pay off.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

grapes said 4 hours ago at March 23, 2012, 9:43 a.m. EST

In quantum mechanics, everything is possible so higher density of protons in a beam can increase the number of protons per unit time penetrating through the electrostatic repulsion of the positively charged boron nucleus by "quantum tunneling" and cause aneutronic fusion, releasing alpha particle in the process.

Alpha particles are +2 charged so they will have even tougher times than protons penetrating to atomic nuclei to make them radioactive unlike the neutral neutrons which cause radioactivity galore because it can travel farther through matter than alpha particles which would be deflected by the positive electric charges in atomic nuclei.

In any case, the objective is to scale up the operation to get positive energy output so focusing the proton beam with magnetic lens can pay off and increasing density of protons can help the scaling up.

We can already achieve cold fusion with intense electric fields slamming deuterons into adsorbed deuterium but the scale is simply too small and has not reached break-even point.

An Increase proton density linearly increases the possibility of fusion (a protons combining with a boron nucleus) via quantum tunneling

An increase in energy of the colliding boron and protons would increase the chance of fusion at a rising rate.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I'm glad to hear you are interested in nuclear energy research as well as worker's capitalism. The following page has a number of interesting links on nuclear power:


I hope your not biased against Lyndon Larouche, as I know many people here are.

Regarding "workers capitalism", I would not say its new, and in fact, that its what we fought for in the American revolution, that is, the right to manufacture our own goods, produced by free men, rather than having to accept "free trade" goods produced by the English empire's slave colony in India.

Its what people are protesting for, whether they know it or not, when they are against outsourcing to China, and having the work done with fair wages paid here in America. Not to say that China shouldn't have manufacturing, but that they should pay fair wages and develop their own internal market, which is potentially vast.

I guess that my name for this economic philosophy, worker's capitalism, is somewhat unique. Here its mostly called the "American System" of economics, or just the "American way":



I started calling it "workers capitalism" while I was teaching English in China, to help my students understand the idea from the perspective of communism.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

I am not from the USA but I very much approve of local production of goods as opposed to needless importation. Here though we strike the issue of world government or the need to organize trade between countries to ensure a fair go for all.

I don't mind Lyndon Larouche despite some of his silly fantasies. He is though very forthright on nuclear power and this is a powerful plus for him.

He used to be a member of the US-SWP and went under the name 'Lyn Marcus'. His Marxist writings were very easy to read as he had a masterly grasp of the subject. Looking forward to reading some more of your postings!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Thanks, I look forward to reading more of your writings as well. Where are you from, by the way, and are you in the US now?

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

I actually live in Australia, though I have visited New York. I am hoping to visit the USA in 2013 after a conference (which I believe will be in Sweden). However if Obama keeps baiting Iran the way it has been in the last few months, international travel may become very difficult and hazardous indeed.

This is also why I cannot comment on direct OWS activities, since I am not on the ground there and cannot assess the mood or the details.

[-] 5 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

This is all Bull shyt!! China's history of oppression, propaganda, and murder outshines anything you could ever put up about that country!!

Get real.....democracy is not that old in China, and you fail to take note of the poverty, hunger and mass annihilation that occur there...

If I were you, I would try to understand why you are pushing China up as to be some type of fantasy island whereas the greed and corruption there is equal if not more than the greed and corruption all over Europe and the Western Hemispheres!!

And then again, who owns that media corporation where you are getting all your alleged truths? You make me laugh!!!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

According to the world bank, the Chinese have brought 100 million people out of poverty over the past few decades. This is not to say that there are not or have not been problems in China.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Yes, and according to the world bank all other nationalities can rot in hell and still are. You can believe the props if you want to...greed never changes or passes away. While they are giving you the schlemiel about that ...have you noticed how they are doing in Africa? Now...why is that country still a cess pool after so many rich nations have had their hands in it...but have failed to raise it any higher after draining its natural resources along with all other nations who allegedly invest there? Be careful....this country is next!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I agree about the world bank and the countries of Africa, but I think it was accurate in its assessment of China.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Perhaps, time will tell. But then again, if Europe fails economically, what other country does the World Bank have to rely on in order to maintain its stability? Can't you see that this illusion of financial greatness is floating away right in front of our eyes? All nations are clamoring to stay afloat the inevitable and no matter how high any of these financial markets rise, they are destined to fall because they do nothing for humanity. This is the new era of humanity...not world markets! Now if China is doing a job of that at 100%, then more power to them...but really I just think they have a great PR department!.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I think we would be better off without the World Bank, and that each country should instead establish and rely on their own national banks. I think that what China is doing is more than just PR. In the province of Tibet, for example, last year there was 100% employment of college graduates, and it looks to be the same for this year:


[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

I really do feel sorry for you. Do you still believe the earth is flat? Perhaps you do.

Tibet is being modernized the same way modernization has helped revolutionize the world...in the capitalists minds only! The rich get richer, or so they think...and humanity falls by the wayside.

You should really read up on what is truly going on over there and not continue to fall for "paid by wall street news media"!!

Oh well....Stay in your dream world....I am not one to try to force anyone to grow or get past all that they have been indoctrinated with to keep them feeling comfortable.. I know that a lot of people Can't Handle The Truth!!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

"Paid by wall street news media"? Did you look at the link? It was published by Xinhua, about as far from Wall Street as you can get.

Having lived in China, I've also spoken with both Chinese and Tibetan people about the economic conditions there. I suggest you take your own advice - wake up, stop dreaming, try to get a handle on the truth.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

I doubt seriously that if, and that is a big IF you lived in China, your reasons there were not humanitarian since anytime a westerner enters those countries, just like Brazil, etc.....you are not given the poverty tour!

Now, lets look at a little reality here.....why are these people protesting? http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30777&t=1

Are you going back for the rally? To your right..

Now. do you think I really care whether you accept my response

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Why are they protesting you ask? Those are Tibetan exiles, they are probably descendants of the ex lords and lamas of Tibet, the upper 5% of the Tibetan population who held the rest of their people as serfs or slaves. They are probably protesting so that they can return to Tibet and re-establish their feudal theocracy.

But perhaps you haven't read "Friendly Feudalism" yet, by Michael Parenti, one of America's favorite leftists:


Didn't you know the Dalai Lama was on the CIA's payroll? You've probably just read too much CIA propaganda. I used to be a "Free Tibet" guy with the bumper sticker and everything until I found out the truth.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Well, I am glad you have worn so many hats. Personally I am a 'FREE THE WORLD" type of individual...so when you are able to conceive that complete truth...maybe then you will have reached my level of understanding. Until then you sound as if you are still in middle school, while picking and choosing who you think deserves to be free from tyranny or who actually is. Perhaps you read Booker T. Washington, one of America's favorite statesmen....Up from Slavery? Believe me...no nation can pretend to be more liberal, more leftist or more of a moral champion of human rights than the nation you already live in so please, spare me the two edged sword bull shyt about China and Asian politics!!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Did you know some high lamas in Tibet owned as many as five thousand serfs? That's right, they owned them just like animals, and sometimes those poor serfs did in fact live in the same sheds as domestic animals. They could be bought and sold as their masters pleased, and if they tried to escape, they could be tortured or killed.

Are those the people you take sides with as a "FREE THE WORLD" type? Is that the "high level of understanding" that you have attained?

The Chinese did the right thing, freeing the Tibetan serfs. It was something like the north freeing the southern slaves in the American civil war, but much less violent.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Who is taking sides, you brought up the subject of Tibet and its people...I am not siding with anyone! All I am trying to do is to get you to grow up, stop acting like there is a division within the world of nations as good or bad. Stop acting like you can define one nation (China) as being perfect. I don't give a flyin fig about who had who for slaves...All nations have had slaves and have been enslaved. If you were a person of wisdom, which you obviously are not, you would understand that fact within the realms of the history of the world, not just China.
Look.....if you have nothing constructive to contribute, don't reply to me anymore...you are like a fourth grader with a Texas edited HIS-story BOOK!!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I'm not saying that China is perfect. I do, however, believe it was a good thing for Tibet to have been liberated, and for college graduates in Tibet to have a 100% employment rate.

Your are the one making silly comparative statements about who is a person of wisdom and who is like a forth grader.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Fourth, not forth.....Point proven! Good bye!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the equator runs through it ?

global warming gonna by tough there


[-] 2 points by GildasSapiens (266) 8 years ago

The Chinese have good reason to support their government.

Since the mid-1990s, the Chinese Communist Party has conspired, with "Westernized" Chinese Nationalist entrepreneurs from Hong Kong & Taiwan (who've provided the smiling, acceptable face of doing business with the Communist Party & the Red Army), to tear the manufacturing (&, increasingly, the service-sector) hearts out of the USA & Europe, undermining (perhaps fatally) the entire Western economy, & bringing to their Chinese subjects a level of prosperity unknown in China's history.

Meanwhile, the Party, itself, remains an unreformed, unreconstructed, totalitarian, potentially-genocidal Mafia.

In short the Chinese Commies have found a way to use Westerners' greed, & especially the greed of the West's 1%, to destroy their hated Western enemies without firing a shot.

Sun Tzu & Emperor Qin Shi Huang would be ROFL in hysterics!

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

China didn't tear anyone else's heart out. Our one percenters tore the heart out of the western workers. The people of China are experiencing unprecedented progress.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Your big point of course 5440 is that China did this without OVERALL direction by capitalist helmsmen. Mao's mistake was to follow Stalin (and Lenin initially) and abolish capitalism altogether. Deng had to correct this, but he did it pragmatically without any philosophical understanding of the deeper issues (so it is claimed - and so it is said he himself claimed).

The important thing to remember however is that capitalism itself is running out of time - as Rosa Luxemburg said: profit originates from the non-Capitalist world, which is now almost non-existent. (If you need me to explain this further I can start a new thread to do so).

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

As a younger man I was quite enthusiastic about Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Perhaps it would have held together had the revolution spread worldwide, but sadly it did not. In order to function in a world dominated by market forces China had to take a step back towards capitalist relations and take drastic steps also to limit its birth rate (which is around the same as Europeans and white North Americans). They did preserve the kernel of planned economy and a central government capable of making and carrying out decisions and that's been to China's great advantage.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 8 years ago

You put all the blame on the West's 1%.

I, too, blame them, but I also put some blame on us, the West's 99% - we expect consumer goods so cheap that we price our own fellow, honest workers out of the market.

But I also believe the Chinese Communist party formulated a deliberate strategy to promote Communist China as THE place to Outsource/Offshore to, as a way of destroying the USA's capacity to wage Cold War 2 against them:


[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

You have a point that the workers and other ordinary Americans have been sleeping while they've been brutally violated. I am optimistic about OW and see it as a sign that this slumber is ended and the giant is coming out of its trance.

The Chinese Communist Party is doing what is right for China in the context of the world as it is. They are developing a strong country and reducing poverty. This is what the Chinese people expect and demand.

You can't expect the Chinese Communist Party to care more about ordinary Americans than about China itself, and you certainly can't expect them to care more about ordinary Americans than we have cared about ourselves and each other.

The world as it is is a terrible place for most. China is smart to build itself up economically and militarily because Uncle Sam beats the crap out of and rapes countries that can't defend themselves and China would not be any exception. Being trampled under foot is old history for China. They've been there, done that and they're not trying to be there again.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center before the 2008 Olympics found that 86 percent of the Chinese interviewed were happy with the direction that China was going, up from 48 percent in 2002, and two thirds thought the government was doing a good job. These were much higher numbers than were found in the United States and European countries on the same issues. In the United States only 26 percent were happy with the direction the country was going. The survey questioned 3,212 Chinese in 16 dialects across the nation. Approval ratings of the government have increased as the economy has improved but the people surveyed did have issues with corruption, environmental problems and inflation.

One third of poll respondents then, did not praise the job the government has done. Apparently they feel free to say so. http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=312

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

China doesn't have a bunch of Republicans constantly trying to degrade the reputation and function of the government. Being authoritarian, they just lock such people up. Well, maybe we do have something to learn from China.


[-] -1 points by SatanDemocrat (-24) 8 years ago

You tell em all! Democrats cannot and will not do wrong by The People!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Now the 'capitolists' are telling us that after sixty years of robbing our treasury to oppose commumisn, we should give up the Western model of liberty and adopt their system of tyranny.

Well I have two simple words in response to that. FUCK YOU!!!

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

To all you knee jerk anti communists-- regarding China as all things:


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Variant: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies edited by Mark C. Carnes. Variant: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Quoted in Timothy J. Penny, Facts Are Facts, National Review September 4, 2003.

Variant: You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.

Ellen Hume, Tabloids, Talk Radio and the Future of News, part 4 (TOC), 1995 cites this as something Moynihan said to a "1994 electoral opponent on WNBC in New York".

However, see [2] where the identical quote is attributed to James R. Schlesinger in 1973 Congressional testimony. Also see Bernard Baruch, who said "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." in the January 6, 1950 issue of the Deming (New Mexico) Headlight

[-] 0 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

What I am about to write, 5440, might seem like a criticism of something you wrote here - but it is not.

Quote: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, BUT NOT HIS OWN FACTS."

Einstein would beg to differ - and he is the leading philosopher of the West because his own words are considered science and not philosophy (which latter term and subject matter has been disparaged as a result)!

If you read his relativity nonsense you will find that each observer lives in his own parallel/daughter universe each with its own (or his own) facts.

In other words, you, I and OWS would want to "make poverty history".

But this is not possible under Einstein-ruled Western science because here his hidden dictum rules i.e. "MAKE HISTORY POVERTY".

Then again, I don't know what Chinese physicists and philosophers are saying about Einstein!

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

I'm the first to admit, I'm not intellectually equipped to debate about Einstein.

[-] 1 points by Dumpthechump (96) 8 years ago

Fear not! Read Joseph Needham's "The Grand Titration" about pre-Western Chinese thought and science, especially re the Hui Shih philosophy which decisively refutes Einsteinian thinking (see pp. 222-223).

Needham had a fierce argument with Einstein who claimed that Greek-based Western thinking was unique in that it and IT ALONE led to genuine science. Other countries, such as China and India, he treated as pre-scientific, half-educated primitives who ultimately had to bow down to Western superiority.

When you come to understand Einstein's cultural chauvinism you can better understand the Western prejudice as its supposed superiority - remember that Einstein came to live in the USA.


[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 8 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""


[-] -1 points by worldwide (6) 8 years ago

Yes, the Chinese commies have a very high approval rating! It is deadly to not approve of the government.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center before the 2008 Olympics found that 86 percent of the Chinese interviewed were happy with the direction that China was going, up from 48 percent in 2002, and two thirds thought the government was doing a good job. These were much higher numbers than were found in the United States and European countries on the same issues. In the United States only 26 percent were happy with the direction the country was going. The survey questioned 3,212 Chinese in 16 dialects across the nation. Approval ratings of the government have increased as the economy has improved but the people surveyed did have issues with corruption, environmental problems and inflation.

One third of poll respondents then, did not praise the job the government has done. Apparently they feel free to say so.


[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 8 years ago

HOORAY for the CoMMIES!! The wave of the future! Better Red than dead!

[-] -2 points by SatanRepublican (136) 8 years ago

Poke around the Chinahush site for a more realistic perspective from the citizens on the street.