I was going to post this on another blog of mine, but I thought, fuck it, we have this Mao blog, I may as well post to it. Comrades: feel free to remove my post if you feel my unilateral action is out of order.
This is the third quotation in the selected Quotations from Chairman Mao, generally known as 'the little red book':
This seems to me to be a dubious apriori assertion, in that it is not known whether, to use the obvious alternative, a KMT government, supported perhaps by the Soviet Union, or by America against the Soviet Union, might not have achieved independence and industrialized. HOWEVER, there is good reason to suspect that the KMT would not have been able to do these things. The reason for this is encapsulated in the previous quotation in the book:
That is to say that the reason why it might not be possible to become independent and industrialize without the Communist Party is that the Communist Party is, unlike the bourgeois nationalist KMT, a rigorously anti-imperialist party which will break the economic chains that keep China servile.
Compare the example of India, where the bourgeois nationalist Congress Party has pretty consistently held power since British decolonization, and where the same level of development seen in China has not taken place, despite protectionism, social democratic policies and the support of the Soviet Union and other powers from time to time. for most of that period (although India, like China has been hit hard by neoliberal globalization in recent years). Although it can be a misleading measure, the GDP per capita figures are clear enough, with China having at least twice that of India. I have lond thought that the reason for this disparity is without doubt the massive development programs unleashed by the CPC after smashing feudalism; in India, feudalism has remained entrenched and consequently remains a bar to the adoption of industrial mode of production.
This is the third quotation in the selected Quotations from Chairman Mao, generally known as 'the little red book':
Without the efforts of the Chinese Communist Party, without the Chinese Communists as the mainstay of the Chinese people, China can never achieve independence or liberation, or industrialization and the modernization of her agriculture.
"On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 318.*
This seems to me to be a dubious apriori assertion, in that it is not known whether, to use the obvious alternative, a KMT government, supported perhaps by the Soviet Union, or by America against the Soviet Union, might not have achieved independence and industrialized. HOWEVER, there is good reason to suspect that the KMT would not have been able to do these things. The reason for this is encapsulated in the previous quotation in the book:
Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people to defeat imperialism and its running dogs.
"Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight Against Imperialist Aggression!" (November 1948), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 284*
That is to say that the reason why it might not be possible to become independent and industrialize without the Communist Party is that the Communist Party is, unlike the bourgeois nationalist KMT, a rigorously anti-imperialist party which will break the economic chains that keep China servile.
Compare the example of India, where the bourgeois nationalist Congress Party has pretty consistently held power since British decolonization, and where the same level of development seen in China has not taken place, despite protectionism, social democratic policies and the support of the Soviet Union and other powers from time to time. for most of that period (although India, like China has been hit hard by neoliberal globalization in recent years). Although it can be a misleading measure, the GDP per capita figures are clear enough, with China having at least twice that of India. I have lond thought that the reason for this disparity is without doubt the massive development programs unleashed by the CPC after smashing feudalism; in India, feudalism has remained entrenched and consequently remains a bar to the adoption of industrial mode of production.
posted by Himself @ 4:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home