Global Learning
  • Home
  • Defenders of Cuban Socialism
    • UN Charter
    • Declaration of Human Rights
    • Bandung
    • New International Economic Order
    • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Substack editorial column
  • New Cold War articles
  • Friends of Socialist China articles
  • Global Research articles
  • Counterpunch articles
  • Cuba and the world-system
    • Table of Contents and chapter summaries
    • About the author
    • Endorsements
    • Obtaining your copy
  • Blog ¨The View from the South¨
    • Blog Index
    • Posts in reverse chronological order
  • The Voice of Third World Leaders
    • Asia >
      • Ho Chi Minh
      • Xi Jinping, President of China
    • Africa >
      • Kwame Nkrumah
      • Julius Nyerere
    • Latin America >
      • Fidel Castro
      • Hugo Chávez
      • Raúl Castro >
        • 55th anniversary speech, January 1, 1914
        • Opening Speech, CELAC
        • Address at G-77, June 15, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, July 5, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, December 20, 2014
        • Speech on Venezuela at ALBA, 3-17-2015
        • Declaration of December 18, 2015 on USA-Cuba relations
        • Speech at ALBA, March 5, 2018
      • Miguel Díaz-Canel >
        • UN address, September 26, 2018
        • 100th annivesary, CP of China
      • Evo Morales >
        • About Evo Morales
        • Address to G-77 plus China, January 8, 2014
        • Address to UN General Assembly, September 24, 2014
      • Rafael Correa >
        • About Rafael Correa
        • Speech at CELAC 1/29/2015
        • Speech at Summit of the Americas 2015
      • Nicolás Maduro
      • Cristina Fernández
      • Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations >
        • Statement at re-opening of Cuban Embassy in USA, June 20, 2015
        • The visit of Barack Obama to Cuba
        • Declaration on parliamentary coup in Brazil, August 31, 2016
        • Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba on Venezuela, April 13, 2019
      • ALBA >
        • Declaration of ALBA Political Council, May 21, 2019
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 17, 2015
        • Declaration on Venezuela, April 10, 2017
      • Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) >
        • Havana Declaration 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 26
    • Martin Luther King, Jr.
    • International >
      • Peoples’ Summit 2015
      • The Group of 77 >
        • Declaration on a New World Order 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela 3/26/2015
      • BRICS
      • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Readings
    • Charles McKelvey, Cuba in Global Context
    • Piero Gleijeses, Cuba and Africa
    • Charles McKelvey, Chávez and the Revolution in Venezuela
    • Charles McKelvey, The unfinished agenda of race in USA
    • Charles McKelvey, Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist Revolutionary
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Recommended books on Amazon.com; click on image of book to connect

Two heroic peoples in solidarity

4/16/2018

0 Comments

 
​      The peoples of Vietnam and Cuba have a special relationship of solidarity, forged in their long struggles for sovereignty against U.S. imperialism.  The relationship was commemorated with the visit to Cuba of a Vietnamese delegation headed by Nguyen Phu Trong, Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam, from March 28 to March 30, 2018.
 
      The Vietnamese struggle against French colonialism was initiated in the late nineteenth century by the scholar-gentry class.  Ho Chi Minh was born in 1890, and he was the son of a Confucian scholar.  Forced to flee Vietnam because of his anti-colonial political activities, Ho encountered French socialism in Paris.  Attracted to the teachings of Lenin for their clear and just formulations on the importance of the anti-colonial struggles in the European colonies, Ho participated in the founding of the French Communist Party in 1920.  He later was educated in the Soviet Union, and he developed an understanding that was a synthesis of the traditions of Confucian nationalism and Marxism-Leninism.  He was the central figure in the founding in 1930 of the Indochinese Communist Party, which formed and led a popular coalition known as the Viet Minh.  It organized armed struggle against the Japanese occupation, and it formulated a program of Vietnamese independence, the distribution of land to peasants, and the formation of a worker-peasant government.  Its courageous resistance to foreign occupation and its politically intelligent program enabled the Viet Minh to attain the support of the people. 
     
     Immediately following the Japanese surrender, armed militias of the people began to take control of the structures of local government, doing so in the name of the Viet Minh.  In this context, Ho’s forces entered Hanoi, and on September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.  France, however, refused to accept Vietnamese independence, and it undertook the reconquest of Vietnam.  The French initiative included the establishment of a puppet government in the southern region of Cochin China, a zone of extensive French-owned rubber plantations, declaring a state separate from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.  The Vietnamese, however, sought the independences of Vietnam, with unification of the territory of the pre-colonial Vietnamese Kingdom.  As a result of the contradictory interests and the impossibility of reaching an accord, the French Indochina War began in 1946.  The Vietnamese nationalist forces were forced to abandon the capital city of Hanoi, and the French established a puppet government, headed by former Vietnamese emperor Bao Dai.  However, the nationalists waged an effective armed struggle, culminating in a shocking defeat of the French forces in the 1954 battle of Dien Bien Phu.  The 1954 peace agreement recognized the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, located north of the seventeenth parallel and led by Ho Chi Minh, and the government of the emperor Bao Dai, located south of the parallel.  The peace talks and accompanying documents led to the understanding by all parties that the division of the county would be temporary, and that the elections would be held in 1956 to unify the country. 
 
     That Ho Chi Minh would win the elections called for in the 1954 Paris documents was recognized by all parties, so the United States encouraged the Dai government to consider itself as the permanent government of South Vietnam, albeit a government under U.S. tutelage and support.  With little possibilities for a peaceful transition to a unified and independent Vietnam, the Indochinese Communist Party organized the National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Vietnam, a military-political coalition of popular organizations, formally established on December 20, 1960.  It was successful in winning the support of the people, such that by 1964, the NLF controlled 80% of the territory of South Vietnam.  The war against the NLF, carried out by the government of South Vietnam with U.S. support, had been lost by 1964.  Meanwhile, in the North, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam initiated a transition to socialism in 1964, with the redistribution of land and the development of state and cooperative ownership of industry.
 
     The United States, however, was politically unable to accept an NLF victory.  As Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wrote years later, U.S. leaders were concerned with the emergence of communist and progressive governments in China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Indonesia, and they considered the implications for the decline of U.S. economic presence and political influence to be unacceptable.  Up to that point, the U.S. strategy had been to support South Vietnam, with the understanding that the South Vietnamese would have to win the struggle in their own right.  In 1965, the USA abandoned this strategy and turned to direct military intervention.  The United States moved from 23,000 military advisers at the beginning of 1965 to 180,000 troops by the end of the year and to 280,000 by the end of 1966, culminating in 550,000 U.S. troops by 1968.  In addition, from 1965 to 1968, the USA engaged in an extensive bombing campaign, with targets in both the North and South.  During the three-year bombing campaign, three times as many tons of bombs were dropped than in all the combat zones of World War II.  The ground war and the bombing campaign resulted in the death of four million Vietnamese, nearly half of them civilians.
 
     The U.S. military escalation of 1965-1968 could not shore up the government of South Vietnam.  The increased U.S. military presence exposed the South Vietnam government as a puppet regime, undermining its claims to be representing a nationalist force and further delegitimizing the government.  NLF troops, increasingly organized as a regular army, repeatedly engaged U.S. troops successfully, choosing the time and location of the battles.  In addition, the South Vietnamese army had become unreliable as a fighting force, as a result of repeated defeats and desertions.  Moreover, the political will of the government of Ho Chi Minh in the North to provide support for the NLF in the South remained unbroken, in spite of the extensive bombing.  On January 30, 1968, the NLF launched attacks on various cities.  The “Tet offensive” was politically effective, for it demonstrated the vulnerability of the South Vietnamese governments in zones under its control.  As a result, the U.S. government agreed to peace negotiations and began a gradual reduction of U.S. troops.  The negotiated peace accord called for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops, which was carried out by March 1973.  In 1975, the government of South Vietnam collapsed, in the face of the united military action by the government of the North and the NLF.  The nation was unified, and a constitutional assembly established the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.  (For various posts on Vietnam, the Vietnamese Revolution, and Ho Chi Minh, see the category Vietnam). 
 
      The Vietnamese struggle for its right to be a sovereign nation surely stands as one of the most heroic struggles in human history.  As it was reaching culmination, a heroic popular struggle on the other side of the earth was passing through its decisive historic moments.  The Cuban Revolution was initiated in 1868, but internal divisions frustrated the attainment of its goals of independence and abolition.  In the 1880s and 1890s, Jose Martí brought a greater clarity of vision, calling for a unified struggle of the popular classes against Spanish colonialism, U.S. neocolonial pretensions, and the Cuban national bourgeoisie.  However, the triumph of the Cuban Revolution again was frustrated, this time by the U.S. military intervention of 1898.  In the 1920s, the popular revolution was renewed, forged by a synthesis of the nationalism and ethical vision of Martí with Marxism-Leninism.  It culminated in the Revolution of 1930 and the government of 100 days in 1933.  However, the Revolution again was frustrated, as a consequence of U.S. interference, which brought Batista to power. 
 
      But the hopes of the Cuban people for a more just and dignified nation could not be permanently denied.  The July 26, 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks galvanized the people to heroic action again, culminating in the revolutionary war of 1957-1958 and the taking of power by the revolutionary movement led by Fidel, in spite of U.S. maneuverings to prevent it.  The Revolution in power took decisive revolutionary steps in 1959 and 1960, most notably a redistribution of agricultural lands and nationalization of properties owned by U.S. corporations.  These steps revealed the essentially anti-neocolonial character of the Cuban Revolution.  The global elite, with consciousness of the implications of such decisive revolutionary steps for the transformation of the neocolonial order, could not let the Cuban Revolution stand.  Thus began the commercial and financial blockade of Cuba, which continues to this day.  However, from 1961 to the present day, the Cuban revolutionary vanguard has led the people in a remarkable demonstration of persistence in its socialist project and in its right to be a sovereign nation, which decides for itself the character of its political-economic system.  (For various posts on the Cuban Revolution from 1868 to 1962, see the category Cuban History).
 
     The Cuban revolutionary government, from the beginning, consistently supported the Vietnamese struggle to establish a unified and socialist nation.  On December 2, 1960, Fidel declared Cuba’s intention to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.  On September 25, 1963, the Cuban Committee for Solidarity with South Vietnam was founded, directed by Melba Hernández, hero of the July 26, 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks.  In 1966, a Cuban delegation, headed by Cuban President Dorticos and Raul Castro, visited Vietnam.  During the visit, Dorticos declared:
Vietnam is today the vanguard of all the peoples of the world, because the Vietnamese people has fought in defense of all peoples and of the socialist camp; and because the Vietnamese people has shed its blood and sacrificed its best sons and daughters, defending the socialist camp and all of the peoples of the world from the aggression of U.S. imperialism.  Therefore, we should not speak of aid but the contribution that we are all obligated to lend to the people of Vietnam. . . .  We proclaim the necessity of the unity of the socialist camp and all the revolutionaries of the world in support of Vietnam (quoted in García Oliveras, 2010:247).
     In 1973, four years after the death of Ho Chi Minh and a little more than a year before the final collapse of the government of South Vietnam, Fidel visited Vietnam.  He declared:
​Our two revolutions, the Vietnamese Revolution and the Cuban Revolution, one in Southeast Asia and the other in Latin America, constitute two events of historic importance and an enormous contribution to the cause of the international revolutionary movement. . . .  We are completely convinced that our two peoples and our two Parties will march strongly united, as comrades that confronted the same enemy of U.S. imperialism.  And we have infinite confidence in the full victory of our peoples.  Our Party and our people always will be in faithful solidarity with the Vietnamese cause (quoted in García Oliveras, 2010:249).
      With the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, its efforts at first were dedicated to rebuilding the infrastructure in the wake of the immense destruction caused by the war.  Subsequently, Vietnamese socialism has evolved into pragmatic socialism, consistent with the intelligent flexibility that Ho Chi Minh persistently demonstrated.  Vietnamese socialism finds space for private capital and investment by foreign capitalistic enterprises, but in accordance with a state plan, and with regulation and control by the state.  Its decisive turn toward pragmatic socialism was taken in 1986, with its policy of “renovation,” which has focused on industrialization and the diversification of the economy and its insertion in the world-economy.  It has concentrated on the development of human resources, in order to improve competitiveness in a world permeated by technology. 
                                                                                              
     Similar to what we have seen with respect to China (see various posts in the category China), the pragmatic approach to socialism in Vietnam since 1986 has resulted in significant economic growth. From being a net importer of rice, Vietnam has become the second largest exporter of rice in the world.  And it has become the world’s largest exporter of coffee, rubber, textiles, and footwear.  In the last two decades, more than twenty million persons have been lifted out of poverty.  The percentage of children of primary school age attending school has reached nearly 100% percent, and life expectancy has reached seventy years. 
 
      In spite of the evident economic and social gains, the Vietnamese Revolution recognizes that there have been social costs of the Renovation.  In addressing this issue, the present emphasis is on the total eradication of poverty, the reduction of infant mortality, the reduction of the gap between the rich and the poor, the lending of greater attention to the mountainous zones, the generation of greater opportunities for the most disadvantaged, and environmental sustainability. 
 
      In a manner paralleling Vietnam, Cuba also has developed a pragmatic approach to socialism, with fidelity to principles but not with ideological rigidity or ultra-Leftist idealism.  From the beginning, the Cuban approach to socialism was adapted to particular national conditions, not copying models from Eastern European, in spite of its economically necessary insertion into the socialist bloc.  In the early 1990s, with the collapse of Soviet Union and Eastern European socialism, Cuba expanded space for small-scale private capital and for joint ventures with foreign capital.  In 2012, Cuba adopted a social and economic model that seeks to improve productivity by further expanding space for small-scale private capital, cooperatives, and foreign investment, always regulated by the state and developed in accordance with state planning.  At the same time, Cuba seeks to further develop its capacities with respect to high value added goods and services, such as biotechnology.  Cuba seeks to develop an economy that is capable to responding to the basic needs of the people and to provide a modest level of prosperity, in the context of a socialist principles and a socialist political-economic system.
 
      Vietnam has become the second commercial trading parting of Cuba from Southeast Asia, after China.  There are a growing number of Vietnamese companies doing business with Cuba as well as increasing Vietnamese investments in such areas as construction, renewable energy, industry, tourism, and the development of infrastructure.
 
     The commemoration of March 28 to March 30 included various events.  They included the granting to Raúl Castro by the Vietnamese Communist Party of its highest award; the signing of an agreement of cooperation by the youth organizations of the two countries; a business forum to identify new opportunities; and a visit to a monument to Ho Chi Minh in the City of Havana.
 
     At the closing ceremony of the Encounter of Solidarity between the youth of Vietnam and the youth of Cuba, Nguyen Phu Trong, Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam, pronounced the following words.
In the history of the contemporary world, there are very few cases of a relation as special as that between our two parties, states, and peoples. . . .  Comandante Fidel Castro affirmed that, in spite of the great geographic distance of nearly half the planet, there are many similarities between our two peoples.  For Fidel, our friendship and fraternity was born and has grown in the context of the historic similarity of two peoples that have struggled against a common enemy.
     For the length of more than half a century, following our establishment of diplomatic relations (12/2/1960), our two peoples always have been shoulder-to-shoulder, in the struggle for national independence and liberty; and today, we are united in the cause of the construction and defense of a socialist country in each nation.  Truly, this relation of friendship, solidarity, and fraternity has become a symbol of our era and an invaluable treasure that both parties and peoples ought to defend, preserve, and bequeath to future generations.
     Vietnam remembers forever, with profound gratitude, the solid support and sincere aid that the Communist Party and the people of Cuba have lent to the people of Vietnam, in our struggle in the past for national independence as well as in the present construction and defense of our nation.  This clear and faithful solidarity and noble internationalist spirit of Cuba has been shown in the words of Comandante Fidel Castro: “We are prepared to shed our own blood for Vietnam” . . . .  For his part, President Ho Chi Minh also affirmed that “Vietnam and Cuba are thousands of miles apart in distance, but they are like brothers of the same family.”
     Taking a retrospective look at the historic road of the special relation between Vietnam and Cuba, we have the right to be proud of the exemplary ties of fraternity, of traditional friendship, of integral cooperation, and of solidarity and fidelity between the parties, states, governments, and peoples of Vietnam and Cuba.  Our ideals have become interwoven and our hearts beat with the same rhythm.  This relation between our parties and peoples is truly a priceless treasure.   
​      For more on the Cuban Revolution and on the Vietnamese Revolution, see The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The Light in the Darkness (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).
                                                   
Reference
 
García Oliveras, Julio A. 2010.  Ho Chi Minh El Patriota: 60 años de lucha revolucionaria.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.
0 Comments

Posts on Vietnam

4/15/2018

0 Comments

 
​     From April 23 to June 9, 2014, I posted 30 blog posts on Vietnam, the Vietnamese Revolution, and Ho Chi Minh.  They traced fundamental developments from the traditional Vietnamese kingdoms to the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1975.  These posts did not include reflections on the subsequent evolution of the unified socialist nation.
 
     From March 28 to March 30, 2018, Nguyen Phu Trong, Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam, visited Cuba as the head of a Vietnamese delegation.  Prior to and during the visit, Cuban newspapers and television news were full of commentaries concerning the historic relation between the two nations as well as on the development of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.  The occasion inspired me to write a long post (“Two heroic peoples in solidarity” 4/16/2018), which included reflections on the evolution of the Vietnamese socialist project.  I hope to be able to study this theme further and to write further posts, so these reflections should be taken as preliminary.
 
      I copy here the section of the April 16, 2018 post that reflects on the evolution of the Vietnamese socialist project.
​      With the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, its efforts at first were dedicated to rebuilding the infrastructure in the wake of the immense destruction caused by the war.  Subsequently, Vietnamese socialism has evolved into pragmatic socialism, consistent with the intelligent flexibility that Ho Chi Minh persistently demonstrated.  Vietnamese socialism finds space for private capital and investment by foreign capitalistic enterprises, but in accordance with a state plan, and with regulation and control by the state.  Its decisive turn toward pragmatic socialism was taken in 1986, with its policy of “renovation,” which has focused on industrialization and the diversification of the economy and its insertion in the world-economy.  It has concentrated on the development of human resources, in order to improve competitiveness in a world permeated by technology. 
 
     Similar to what we have seen with respect to China (see various posts in the category China), the pragmatic approach to socialism in Vietnam since 1986 has resulted in significant economic growth. From being a net importer of rice, Vietnam has become the second largest exporter of rice in the world.  And it has become the world’s largest exporter of coffee, rubber, textiles, and footwear.  In the last two decades, more than twenty million persons have been lifted out of poverty.  The percentage of children of primary school age attending school has reached nearly 100% percent, and life expectancy has reached seventy years. 
 
      In spite of the evident economic and social gains, the Vietnamese Revolution recognizes that there have been social costs of the Renovation.  In addressing this issue, the present emphasis is on the total eradication of poverty, the reduction of infant mortality, the reduction of the gap between the rich and the poor, the lending of greater attention to the mountainous zones, the generation of greater opportunities for the most disadvantaged, and environmental sustainability. 
 
      In a manner paralleling Vietnam, Cuba also has developed a pragmatic approach to socialism, with fidelity to principles but not with ideological rigidity or ultra-Leftist idealism. . . .
     Please scroll down to find the thirty posts on Vietnam written from April 23 to June 9, 2014.  They are as follows:
“On the meaning of Vietnam” 04/23/2014;
“Vietnamese empires” 4/24/2014;
“French colonialism in Vietnam” 4/25/2014;
“What enabled French colonialism?” 4/28/2014;
“Confucian scholars and nationalism” 4/29/2014;
“On the charismatic leader” 4/30/2014;
“Who was Ho Chi Minh?” 5/2/2014;
“Ho encounters French socialism” 5/5/2014;
“Ho the delegate of the colonized” 5/6/2014;
“Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014;
“Ho synthesizes socialism and nationalism” 5/8/2014;
“Ho’s practical theoretical synthesis” 5/9/2014;
“The Indochinese Communist Party” 5/12/2014;
“The Vietminh and the taking of power” 5/13/2014;
“Vietnam declares independence” 5/14/2014;
“France seeks re-conquest of Vietnam” 5/15/2014;
“The French-Indochinese War” 5/16/2014;
“The Geneva Conference of 1954” 5/19/2014;
“South Vietnam” 5/20/2014;         
“The National Liberation Front (NLF)” 5/21/2014;
“Construction of socialism in the North” 5/22/2014;
“Agrarian reform in Vietnam” 5/23/2014;
“The failure of US military escalation” 5/26/2014;
“The ideology of anti-communism” 5/27/2014;
“Cold War ideology & US policy in Vietnam” 5/28/2014;
“The teachings of Ho Chi Minh” 5/29/2014;
“The imperialist lesson of Vietnam” 5/30/2014;
“US support for French war of reconquest” 6/5/2014;
“Nuclear weapons and Dien Bien Phu” 6/6/2014;
“Revolutionary sacrifice” 6/9/2014.
0 Comments

The art of listening

4/8/2018

0 Comments

 
​     Yesterday, I by chance viewed part of a television program on the Arts and Entertainment Network, in which Ray Chen, an award-winning Taiwanese-Australian violinist, was explaining the need for developing our capacities for profound listening.  He noted that his mother had taught him that, if you constantly talk without listening to others, you would not be able to learn, and thus would not have anything important to say.  He also observed that it seemed to him that most people listen only superficially, just enough to identify what they take to be errors in the view of the other.

      Chen was offering practical wisdom important for the personal development of understanding and knowledge in the fields of common sense and music.  His insights parallel what I have tried to formulate for the field of historical social science, which also could be called historical political economy.  The field attained its highest stage of scientific development in the West with the work of Marx, but since the time of Marx, it has become fragmented in the universities, and the separated disciplines of philosophy, history, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology have emerged.  As a result of its fragmentation in the universities, the evolution of the field of historical political economy has occurred in the domain of political struggles for social justice, formulated by charismatic leaders, of whom Lenin, Mao, Ho, and Fidel are the most exemplary. (See various posts in this category of Knowledge).

       I have maintained that, with respect to the development of the understanding of social justice issues, especially important is listening to voices of the social movement leaders of the colonized and neocolonized peoples of the planet, inasmuch as they have a vantage point “from below.”  However, as I have observed, such encounter with the movements of the colonized is overlooked systemically in the cultures of the North, or at least not developed beyond superficiality.  This limitation affects even the understanding and the political discourse of the Left.

      What would we learn if we were to listen carefully to the voices of the Third World revolutionary leaders?  We would arrive to important insights in two areas.  First, we would arrive to much greater understanding with respect to global political and social dynamics.  We would learn that the world-system and world-economy have been constructed on a colonial foundation of peripheralization of the economies of the world, thus converting the world’s economies into providers of cheap raw materials and purchasers of surplus manufactured goods, resulting in underdevelopment and poverty in vast regions of the world and in the economic growth of the colonizing nations.  We would learn that the colonized peoples of the world, with variation in particularities and in degrees of advancement, forged anti-colonial revolutions that sought national sovereignty and social transformation; they attained political independence but not true sovereignty, thus establishing the foundations of the neocolonial world-system.  We would learn that as the neocolonial world-system entered a sustained crisis, as a result of its having reached the geographical limits of the earth, its elites launched economic and military attacks against the peoples and nations of the earth, in violation of the imperialist rules of neocolonial domination, for which the fiction of a democratic world was necessary.  We would learn that the elite attack on the peoples in the context of systemic crisis have given rise to two serious problems, namely, a new form of terrorism that indiscriminately targets civilians, and an uncontrolled international migration to core zones.  And we would learn that some anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial revolutions, notably those in China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, have forged stable political systems and growing economies and are cooperating with one another in developing new international guidelines that could serve as the foundation of an alternative more just and sustainable world-system.  We would learn these things if we were to learn to listen, because a host of Third World political and social movement leaders, academics, intellectuals, and journalists understands them.  

     Secondly, we would arrive to appreciate the importance of the art of politics, a quality that has been exhibited by social movement leaders of the Third World.  The revolutionary leaders that were successful obtaining the support of their peoples invariably demonstrated a high capacity for appreciating the issues, slogans, and discourses that would provoke a responsive chord among the people.  In addition, they understood that the people, outraged by abuses and social injustices, possess a revolutionary spontaneity, but that the people must be led toward the necessary road.

      Cultural factors influence our capacity to listen.  The culture of the United States, for example, with its historic economic development forged by commerce, the conquest of new territories, and individual dreams of upward mobility, listening to others has not been a quality of high priority.  In contrast, for the colonized peoples of the Third World, the experience of colonialism made apparent the different ways of viewing the world among the peoples of the planet as well as the necessity for cooperation and mutual listening among humans.  Now, as the multifaceted economic, political, ecological, and cultural crisis of the world-system deepens, the need for profound listening increasingly is necessary for political stability and ecologically sustainable economic growth.



0 Comments

On dismissing official explanations

4/3/2018

1 Comment

 
​     There is a widespread tendency, especially among Western academics, to reject government formulations as nothing more than “official” proclamations.  Minqi Li and Maurice Meisner display this tendency in their books on China.  Li dismisses the “socialist market economy” as a “euphemism for capitalism” (2008:64).  For his part, Meisner reports on Chinese Marxist theoretical formulations in a dismissive tone.  He writes:
​An economic system that was rapidly on its way to becoming capitalist, as was clear to all, was officially called “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”  Multitudes of intellectuals . . . were brought forth to construct a Marxian ideological rationale for the regime’s market policies.  They drew upon the rather prominent strands in the original writings of Marx that celebrate the economic dynamics of capitalism and its historical progressiveness.  They repeated Deng Xiaoping’s celebrated 1956 these that the main contradiction in Chinese society was between its “advanced socialist system” and “backward productive forces” (488-49).
​He further writes that the Fourteenth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 1992
​ratified the virtually unlimited adoption of capitalist methods and ideas to accelerate economy growth, although the social result was officially called a ‘socialist market economic system.’  For inventing this oxymoron, Deng was extravagantly praised for making yet another ‘great theoretical breakthrough’ in the development of ‘Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought,’ which incongruously remained the title of official state ideology (518). 
     Let us, for purposes of reflection, imagine a situation in which a popular revolutionary party has taken political power.  Let us further imagine that, once in power, the leaders take what they understand to be steps necessary for the defense of the people and the nation, which would include new measures, regulations, and laws.  Many will question or oppose these steps, some from sincere doubts concerning their correctness, and others as spokespersons for particular interests that want to derail the effort at revolutionary transformation.  In this situation, the revolutionary leadership will explain what they are doing.  We cannot assume that such explanations are not sincere.  They are not necessarily ideological rationalizations constructed to hide an intention of a new ruling class to defend its particular interests, even though they always can be interpreted in this way, with a resourceful mixture of speculation and cynicism.    

     We who live in the representative democracies of the West are accustomed to misrepresentations and rationalizations by governments, for they often are pretending to represent the interests of the people, when in fact they represent the particular interests of private capital and campaign contributors.  But as we seek to understand, we must be open to the possibility that government spokespersons are explaining the reasons for the measures that they are taking.  Indeed, all governments have the right and duty to do so.  We should avoid the tendency to dismiss; we should listen first, and critically analyze next.  

     In the case of China, one of the historic goals of its popular socialist revolution was to protect the sovereignty of the nation, reversing the concessions to the imperialist powers that had reduced a once-great empire to an impoverished nation.  In analyzing the Chinese “opening” from the vantage point of this historic revolutionary goal, we need to know the conditions in which foreign capital was permitted to operate in China.  However, Meisner’s book does not provide this necessary information.  He observes merely that China created in 1978 conditions favorable for foreign investors, which is nothing more than a tautology, because if the conditions were not favorable for their investment, foreign capitalists would not invest.  

     The question emerges, were the conditions established by the Chinese government, in addition to being favorable to capital, also favorable to China?  Chinese Marxist theoreticians and political leaders maintain that the Chinese government is establishing a situation different from the prevailing pattern for peripheral and semi-peripheral countries of the capitalist world-economy, which promotes underdevelopment in the countries where the capitalists are investing.*  They sustain that the Chinese socialist state is requiring capitalist investors to adapt to conditions favorable to China, consistent with a concept of a market directed by the state, and in accordance with the principles of a socialist market economy.  In their view, China is developing conditions that are mutually beneficial to capitalist investment and to the goals of revolutionary China.

     If indeed it is the case that China has developed a strategy of attracting foreign capital, but imposing conditions in accordance with national interests, then China is developing a political-economic system different from capitalism, where the market rules (with state support).  And different as well from the classic socialism of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, in which the state directs, but with regulations that inhibit the development of national productive forces.  If this were to be the case, then China would be developing a new form of socialism, a socialism that responds to Chinese conditions and needs, or a “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” which is the “official” claim of the Chinese Communist Party.  

       Taking into account the significant gains of the Chinese reform and opening of 1978 to 2012 in promoting the economic development and sovereignty of China, the Chinese road of pragmatic socialism should not be dismissed.  It should be taken seriously as a subject for research and reflection, and as a possible alternative road for humanity in the context of the increasingly evident unsustainability of the capitalist world-economy.  


* For more reflection on the prevailing patterns of the capitalist world-economy, the various posts in the following categories: The Origin and Development of the Modern World-System, Neocolonialism, and Colonialism, Semi-Colonialism, and Neocolonialism in Latin America.


​References
 
Li, Minqi.  2008.  The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World-Economy.  New York:  Monthly Review Press.
 
Meisner, Maurice.  1999.  Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic, Third Edition.  New York: The Free Press.
 
1 Comment

    Author: Charles McKelvey

    Retired professor, writer,  and Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Blog Index
    Bolivia
    Charismatic Leaders
    China
    Critique Of The Left
    Cuban History
    Cuba Today
    Ecuador
    Environment
    French Revolution
    Gay Rights
    Haitian Revolution
    Knowledge
    Latin American History
    Latin American Right
    Latin American Unity
    Marx
    Marxism-Leninism
    Mexican Revolution
    Miscellaneous
    Neocolonialism
    Neoliberalism
    Nicaragua
    North-South Cooperation
    Presidential Elections 2016
    Press
    Public Debate In USA
    Race
    Religion And Revolution
    Revolution
    Russian Revolution
    South-South Cooperation
    Third World
    Trump
    US Ascent
    US Imperialism
    Vanguard
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    Wallerstein
    Women And Revolution
    World History
    World-System
    World-System Crisis

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

More Ads


website by Sierra Creation