A reply to Charlie Hore on why Imperialism rather than Chinese Stalinism is responible for social inequalities within China!

IS CHARLE HORE CONCLUDING FROM HIS LINE THAT CHINESE STALINISM IS MORE RESPONIBLE FOR SOCIAL INEQUALITY THAN IMPERIALISM THAT IN PRATCICE STALINISM IS WORSE THAN IMPERIALISM?:- A REPLY BY ANTHONY BRAIN.

(Three sections missing :- debate on contradictions of Taafe's line and his increasingly revisionist line of "State Capitalism" on China; the extent of collapse in Capitalist firms within two provinces within China since 2008; and a reply to Heiko Khoo's adaptation to Chinese Stalinism. I may not be able to complete these 3 section due to having dental treatement but I published it now for reader's interest).


Charlie Hore seems to be moving towards an extremely Stalinphobic position when he argues due to Imperialism being weakened within China that Chinese Stalinism is now more responsible than Imperialism for social inequalities within China. Hore coming from the “State Capitalist” tradition does not understand workers’ states as transitional societies ruled by bureaucratic castes which require Political Revolution. Imperialism always impacts on workers’ states at different times until Capitalism is overthrown in the Imperialist countries, especially within America.. This is why the Monopoly of Foreign Trade is so important and you cannot build Socialism in one country.


There are Capitalist firms operating within China. At the same time there are layer of Chinese Bureaucrats who are enriching themselves by investing in the U.S. Treasury. It is what Mandel would call the dialectics of ziz-zags of the British SWP and their predecessors that you argue the complete opposite of several decades. Mandel wrote in 1951 in “Ten theses on Stalinism”, which he submitted to 3rd World Congress of the Fourth International (FI) that the key methodological error of “Bureaucratic Collectivism” was that it under-estimated world Capitalist pressures on the Soviet and Eastern European Bureaucracies and ignored in particular the Bourgeois norms of distribution (money; trade; and currencies etc) . He argued against “State Capitalism” in the same document because it did not recognise the non-Capitalist mode of production within those economies.


Does Hore draw the logical conclusion from his line on social inequality that Stalinism in practice now is worse than Imperialism? His third article is an eclectic mix of downplaying Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state to justify not defending that society from Imperialist attack; and to the worse aspects of “State Capitalism”.

There are two basic contradictions within Hore’s series of three articles on China. At first he has to admit some of the development within productive forces within China and social gains for workers. He has to adapt towards the accomplished facts because he would be more in denial what is happening within China than what the Bourgeois intelligentsia within Imperialist countries has to admit. It would isolate the SWP from a possible radicalization among middle class academics who look to Chinese workers’ state as an alternative to Capitalism.


Even on a factual level Hore contradicts himself when he outlines socio-economic accomplishments with examples at the beginning of his first article and then says conditions for workers has generally worsened. These are the following examples he gives:- 10% growth for several years even after the crisis of world Capitalism from 2008 onwards; several years after 1978 rural incomes doubled; hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty; 7 out of 10 Chinese households have computers; 8 out of 10 households have cars; and almost every households have at least 2 mobile phones.

After Hore making these factual concessions he then returns to arguing against a Trotskyist analysis of why this is happening (which argues the Bureaucracy carrying out the Permanent Revolution distorted for their caste interests) saying the workers have made no gains it is only in the interests of “rich and business” and “complexity of Capitalist exploitation”. On Hore’s latter point Trotsky took up the exact argument in a introduction to “Revolution Betrayed” about” Capitalist exploitation” being responsible for massive industrialization within the Soviet Union’s economy during the 1930s. Trotsky refuted this by saying:- why did the Soviet economy expand when there was a global Capitalist depression? The same is applicable within China today which those on the left who argue China is “Capitalist” cannot answer.

By not recognizing the workers’ state within China you cannot see why only the class rule of workers despite being politically expropriated is the rapid development of productive forces made possible by a planned economy and public services being expanded. Trotsky also argued in “the Revolutionary Betrayed” that socio-economic gains listed below is only possible by overthrowing Capitalism. The Bureaucracy has a dual role of undermining the workers’ state through bureaucratic pillage and defending their own privileges based on it. This contradiction leads to conflicts within the bureaucracies. You can see this in Eastern Europe and Russia in the battles within these castes between those who gain from pillage and cutbacks:-governments and those who lose out those who work in public services or nationalized industries.

Marx argued in the “Communist Manifesto” that Capitalism requires mass poverty and destroying any past workers gains as the way to offset declining profits. This can be seen even in the Imperialist countries with millions of workers and even middle class elements having their living standards slashed and public services being rapidly cut and privatized. China shows most clearly the validity of Permanent Revolution of how a Socialist revolution can accomplish even in a former semi-Colony.

American Trotskyists Joseph Hansen and Tom Kerry updated Trotsky’s analysis of independent Stalinist-led Socialist revolutions (which Trotsky did not see as a theoretical possibly except as a workers and farmers government) independent of the Soviet Bureaucracy. Kerry argued during the 1960s that Stalinism is one of the most contradictory phenomena which ever exists. It is one of the most counter-revolutionary forces but also protects property relations due to its caste privileges being based on the greatest mode of production within class society as a result of Capitalist property relations being overthrown. The objective basis for Socialism is laid due to socialization of productive relations. Bureaucratic castes resist the restoration of Capitalism because most of them would lose their privileges as they would have to be eliminated if Capitalist profits Marx called the law of Value is to predominate.

I am going to finish where I began with the Imperialist pressures on the Chinese workers’ state. (Contradictions of Taafe’s position on China. His July-August article in Socialism Today gave statistical data which could be used to argue China is a degenerate workers’ states and quotes Bourgeois economists showing that there different factions within the Chinese Bureaucracy. Later in that article he refrains from drawing conclusions that it is a workers’ state and goes more revisionist by defining China as “State Capitalist”. Taafe while denying he is different from Cliff echoes similar arguments that “State Capitalism” will not privatize for a whole period. In reality if the Capitalist firms unlike Cliff/Taafe revisionists had the upper hand they would quickly overthrow Chinese Stalinism and defeat working class so Capitalist restoration could proceed quickly. At CWI summer school this summer Taafe emphasized less socio-economic gains in China and stressed more his “State Capitalism” revisionism. Taafe even though shift in emphasis in July-August Socialism Today article is a prisoner of Third Camp/Stalinphobic elements who has accommodated in the past and may faced a backlash from that right-wing of the CWI because he began to change his line on China. The CWI’s Stalinphobia is clearly seen when they will not defend North Korea from Imperialism even though they admit that regime is Stalinist, which means for Trotskyists a degenerate workers’ state. Trotskyists defend the North Korean workers’ state from Imperialism. We try to overthrow them with a political revolution but if Imperialism threatens them we have a united front with that bureaucracy to defeat Imperialism).

(I read somewhere – check sources those Capitalist firms semi-collapsed in those two provinces – after 2008 crisis. Criticism of Heiko Khoo when he adapts to Chinese Stalinism; wrong method on class nature of Libya; and his wrong line on Russia).