A contribution to the Lippman-RIddell debate on the class nature of China

Walter Lippmen correctly attacks the un-dialectical method of John Riddell in being too negative towards China due to falsely concluding Capitalism has been restored. He points to China's massive economic development which even Bourgeois economists have argued is unique in history. Riddell's major methodlogical error is believing Capitalism can develop third world countries on the scale of China. This is a logical step from when you went along with Jack Barnes's break from Permanent Revolution during the early 1980s. After the Bourgeois elements were defeated in the 15th centuy , Feudalism was consolidated within China. During that period there was a possibility of a major Capitalist development with China possessing the world's biggest navy and their extensive trade with Africa. A major Capitalist development became impossible due to the Chinese Bourgeoisie being weakened by a dominant Aristocracy. Once Capitalism had domianance over the world during the 19th Century Capitalism imposed their subordination of China to the needs of their markets.


From the Boxer rebellion of 1900 to the Chinese revolution of 1949 there were anti-Imperialist rebellions. A Chinese Trotskyist by the name of Peng Shu-Tse analysed that Amerian Imperialism for a whole variety of factors was unable to put down the Socialist Revolution in 1950. As Trotsky said of Russia the attempted Bourgeois revolution in China during the 15th century fail due to their weakeness, once Imperialism dominated China it was only through carrying out a Socialist revolution could the productive forces go forward. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution which China vindicates is that you have combine the Bourgeois-Democratic tasks of national liberation against Imperialism combined with the Socialist tasks of overthrowing Capitalism.


The model for Trotskyists in analysing China is Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed". Trotskyists should point out how China proves that a workers' State can massively develop the productive forces than Capitalism; can innovate with new technologies; and lift millions of millions out of poverty. This is what Trotsky said about the Soviet Union in the "Revolution Betrayed". China has lifted 300 million out of poverty! One significant change which makes China different from Russia is that due to Capitalism's weakness China has become part of the international division of labour. China at the same time maintains a monopoly of foreign trade. This contradiction of China threatening Capitalism's markets and maintaining the workers' state through that monoploy of foriegn trade could escalate the trade tensions with Imperialism. The restoration of Capitalism would destroy the productive forces accumulated since 1950 and the social gains which workers have accomplished. By doing this work Trotskyists can popularise our program by showing that even through the distortion of Stalinism of what a workers' state can accomplish by carrying out Permanent Revolution.


Riddell has to admit in his reply to Lippman that rapid economic development is occuring within China. Riddel is correct that state intervention in China has prevented a depression in their economy. How is this possible under Capitalism? when Trotsky argued that state intervention is to bail out a decaying economic system. Trotsky pointed out however a Workers' state however degenerated has a different dynamic to Capitalism because the socialisation of productive forces liberated by a Socialist revolution. When Riddell attacks the concepts of state ownership being Socialist just by those measures alone and then goes on to label it "State Capitalist" breaks from a Marxist understanding of the different economic laws of Capitalism and workers' states. Even before the rise of Stalinism, Marx and Engels, and in documents of the first 4 world congress of the Comintern the socialisation of production through Socialist revolutions was one indication for the existence of workers' states.


One major mistake Riddell makes is not realising that the restoration of Capitalism requires the destruction of the bulk of state-owned industries. At the end of his reply Riddell correctly concludes that China is not Imperialist but then poses a question mark in defending it from Imperialism. It is peculair that Riddell will not defend a workers' state but will support correctly semi-Colonies in any wars against Imperialism. Trotskyists oppose Stalinist oppression of nationalities such as Tibet but defend the Chinese workers' state against Imperialism. Riddell was correct to break from Barnes' abandonment of the Colonial revolution but to his right on the workers' states. It is important for Trotskyists to challenge Liberal Human rights justifications for Imperialist intervention in workers' states and semi-Colonies.


Lippman's reply to Riddell is 90% correct but where does he stand on Permanent Revolution? One disagreement I have with him is his rejection of historical models. Trotskyists contiuing with Lenin have to make assessements incorporated into programme of what worked and failed. This is so the working class do not make the same disatrous mistakes.