||Issue No. 269||24 June 2005|
Truth In Advertising
Interview: The Baby Drought
Industrial: Lies, AWAs and Statistics
Workplace: The Invisible Parents
History: Bruce’s Big Blunder
Politics: All God's Children
Economics: Spun Out
International: Shakey Trials
Legal: Civil Distrubance
Review: Crash Course In Racism
Poetry: You're Fired
The Locker Room
Stuck for words
More care, less scare
Do or die time
China throws in Mao’s towel
Don’t strike out strikes
Letters to the Editor
China throws in Mao’s towel
Your story on how Australian Topmaking Services plans to move their factory to China & sack 108 workers in Parkes (Workers Online #268) contained the following sentence:
"He threw down the challenge to his local National Party MP for Parkes, John Cobb, who is part of a government pushing for a free trade deal with the communist republic."
Now, it may come as a surprise to some, but "communism" actually has a meaning. It refers to the philosophy based on the belief in the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". A moment's thought should be enough to convince people that nothing like that is going on in China at the moment.
When Mao was alive, the Chinese "Communist" Party was riven by a struggle between two factions. After he died, Mao's utopian authoritarianism was ditched as the power-brokers lined up behind the other faction. They saw their chance to rule over a major industrial powerhouse and global power - and China has been breaking the speed limit on the capitalist road ever since.
Deng Xiaoping, once safely in charge, pronounced the new doctrine "To get rich is glorious". Does this sound like communism? Of course, there was no intention of accompanying this with any democracy. They proved this in Beijing in 1989, when they sent the army to massacre students and workers who had illusions that the party could be reformed.
What has followed is an attempt to create a modern version of what China was under the Imperial Mandarin bureaucracy. The bureaucracy (today called the "Communist" Party) is drawn from the rich elite and possession of a place in the bureaucracy enables advancement within that elite. The means of production (formerly land, but today the whole spectrum of capitalist property), are held individually while, through the bureacracy, the rich rule collectively.
The only thing "communist" about China is the name used by the gang of thugs and lying rodents who are running the joint. If China really was communist, there would be no question of a free trade deal - and Howard would be running a scare campaign against it which leaves the current War "on" Terror for dead. Instead, he lets its ruler address the Australian Parliament. Isn't that proof enough about the nature of the Chinese government?
|Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue|