China 2

162 posts / 0 new
Last post

epaulo13 wrote: a lawyer you should know better. you are not taking this discussion seriously. you are just expressing personal opinions. that's ok i'm not trying to dictate terms for you. i'm saying i'm not about to debate opinions that aren't based in reality. it's a dead end. it shuts down debate.

I am trying to take this discussion very seriously. But it starts from the wrong premise and perspective that is why I highlighted the biased OPINION of the quote.

I listened the piece you posted and all I could hear was #All Capital Matters.  A discussion by privileged American from universities that does not start from an acknowledgement of the effects of colonialism and that until that colonialism stops, which it hasn't, no real change can occur in the world.

I was thinking of Greece in the context of the debate about China and capital. The people of Greece tried to control their own financial destiny by a liberal democratic means. Now the reason it is relevant is a YouTube I watched where Yanis Varoufakis explained it very well to a woman who while not as sophisticated as your panel used much the same logic. This is the "reality" I see the debate from.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture


..i've seen that video before. i wasn't impressed by it. i see in my head a meeting taking place as petrochina is wondering whether of not to invest in bc lng. i'm certain the question came up what about the aboriginal issue. not to worry is the response. we have the ndp on our side and the liberals. and of course the rcmp will clear the path. this is the face of state capitalism. how many other countries has that happened i wonder.

..china who wanted to be seen as a market economy at the wto just like the us. just like the european union. and who has been propping up american wars by carrying their debt for a very long time. while you see the current tensions between the us and china you are ignoring the collaborations at the global economic level that have been going on for years. the economics of capitalism. china very much fits in to your, definition of the evil empire. not equivalent to the us but neither is the euro. 

..then there's the change within china. the move to a harder line.     

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

I listened the piece you posted and all I could hear was #All Capital Matters.  A discussion by privileged American from universities that does not start from an acknowledgement of the effects of colonialism and that until that colonialism stops, which it hasn't, no real change can occur in the world. a lawyer you can be viewed as privileged. yet no one is judging you for it. i really believe you missed the message. sorry for repeating myself. this conflict is primary driven by the global economics of capitalism. the crisis of capitalism to be exact. perpetual growth and acquisition. a global system that is out of control. as a corporate ceo your job is to grow profit or your out. no one can control it. it's a machine onto it's own.

..again sorry for repeating. the solution, imv, is building a new world inside the old beginning at the local level. there are cities working on it as we speak. some of the latest examples is around defunding the police.



Colonialism is real and has been affecting China without a break for centuries. The idea that the victim and the oppressor belong in the same dialogue as equals tells me that colonialism is not seen as the root of the problem by the people talking. When a wife fights back against her abusive husband some people decry the fact that she has a nasty tongue and hits her kids and they hit each other. As a community we should ensure that she can live safely without being abused by the husband not focusing on her. We need to do that because misogyny like colonialism is real and must be the focus when talking about abuse. Power makes the difference in every relationship and those imbalances must form the basis for any discussion. I don't demand that people fighting colonialism are perfect I also don't like when the victims of systemic imperialism are lumped in as imperialists for fighting back with some of the same tools as the oppressors. Where are you going to get your capital from for your local projects? Capital is not evil it is only capital that is not democratically controlled that is evil. Unfortunately there are few places on the planet where capital is controlled by the people.

Your analysis of the Chinese model and what I have read tells me that unlike our elite they are not just tied to oil and gas projects they will invest in any infrastructure. If Canada was trying to rapidly transition to a green economy I am sure that Chinese companies would be glad to invest but that is not what the political elite in Canada want to build. In Canada we are doubling down on a fading industry and China is still willing to invest, imagine if we told them that instead they could invest in alternate energy projects, as a junior partner.

I for one am sure that if as a country we wanted to go green we could but we would need a democracy of some sort to get there. In the meantime my Village, like all municipalities, have strict borrowing rules to stop them from going bankrupt. As a society we have no pool of capital to build anything that is not within the financing limits set by the bankers. I think a focus on China is just more distraction from the real problem of controlling our own fucking elites. If we can stop our leaders from terrorizing the world for a couple of decades maybe other countries might transition to alternate models of governance. Hell if NATO was not actively trying to promote regime change around the globe maybe they could ease their security measures when the threat abated. I know that is a far fetched dream but maybe we should get our "democratically" elected governments in NATO to try that first because we are the good guys.

I feel like what HUAC would call a fellow traveler, Ban the Bomb, dupe for siding with China .


Canada's Membership in the Five Eyes Alliance Promoting Conflict with China

"...Amidst unprecedented protests against racism, there has been remarkably little interest in the white supremacist foreign policy alliance currently driving conflict with China. Overcoming structural racism should not be limited to what goes on inside Canada. We must confront racism wherever it is found, including in our international alliances."


'Man Goes on Racist Rant Over Having To Wear Mask at Mississauga Supermarket

"When will the Chinese diaspora realize this has gone WAY beyond interpersonal racism and is part of an institutionalized campaign of Sinophobia that mirrors the worst kind of anti-Semitism? It's clear these white people are being activated by the news."


Is Unthinkable US/China War Possible?

"The threat to China's national security from the US (and vassals) is ominously real. Provocations by Washington could escalate to something more serious. On July 3, Trump regime Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro falsely claimed the following:

'I want everybody right here today, on the day before America's Independence Day, to understand where the virus started - with the Chinese Communist Party that is making us stay locked in our homes and lose our jobs. They spawned the virus. They hid the virus. They sent hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals over here to see and spread the virus...."


New Law Liberates Hong Kong From Interference

"After the US instigated riots in Hong Kong last year the central government of China saw a necessity to intervene. In light of other anti-China measures the US has taken the reputational costs of doing so had become less important. Yesterday the Chinese parliament, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, added a national security law to the Basic Law that governs Hong Kong's special status. The law is designed to end foreign interference in Hong Kong."


"A full-scale McCarthyite witch-hunt is underway in the West, imported from Trump's rogue state. It is racist and aimed at a non-existent 'threat' from China. Reality is inverted..." John Pilger

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

I feel like what HUAC would call a fellow traveler, Ban the Bomb, dupe for siding with China .

..even though i disagree with your position. even though it is built on shaky ground i can understand and accept that this is your position.

..there was never any need to trash talk other fellow travelers who hold a different perspective. there is no justification for it. the uphill struggle we as activists face is hard enough without this shit going on. feelings of hopelessness begins to creep inside me when i see this. 



US War Drive Against China Accelerates

"...Confronting a deep social and economic crisis at home, with growing opposition in the working class to the reckless back-to-work drive, the Trump administration is seeking to divert social tensions outward at an external enemy. Trump, backed by the Democrats and the media establishment is seeking to whip up a climate of war fever through a relentless campaign and anti-China propaganda based on lies and disinformation.

The focus on China reflects the view in [North] American strategic circles that China's extraordinary economic expansion represents the chief threat to the continued global dominance of American imperialism. All the preparations for a US war against China, which would rapidly escalate into a catastrophic conflict involving the whole world, are very advanced..."


Trump Signs Executive Order & Bill Targeting China Over Hong Kong

"Trump announced the signing of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act during a press conference on Tuesday, a law he said will sanction Chinese individuals and organizations involved in 'extinguishing Hong Kong's freedom.' The President also took shots at Chinese telecom giant Huawei, saying it posed a 'big security risk' and that he had personally 'convinced many countries' to avoid the company's technology. In addition to China, Trump made a brief detour to hit on the European Union, arguing the body did not serve US interests..."


China and Iran Draw Up Military and Trade Partnership in Defiance of Trump Administration

"Beautiful dialectics. Washington's plan to create a New Middle East curated by the twin pariahs - Israel and the Saudis is now in a shambles as a major eastward realignment of the region takes place. Iran and China lead the way..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Disintegrating US-China Economic Symbiosis and the New Inter-Imperial Rivalry

Today, there is a lot of talk about a “New Cold War” between China and the U.S., a Cold War between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. But we all know that China did not become authoritarian just two years ago. The whole establishment of the U.S. has been very happy about Chinese authoritarianism for a long time.

Just two weeks after the June 4, 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, on Jun 20, President George H. W. Bush wrote a secret letter to Deng Xiaoping. The letter said that the U.S. was not so mad about the Communist Party sending the army to shoot its people. Bush told Deng that the U.S. was only a two-hundred years young country, and China was a five thousand years old country [sic] with great contributions to world civilization, so the Chinese leaders were wise and knew what was best for the Chinese people. Bush assured Deng that Tiananmen was not going to stand in the way of the great commercial relationship between the U.S. and China. If there were an ideology-based Cold War between the U.S. and China, it should have started thirty years ago.

In my ongoing research, I look at the origins and dynamics of the transformation of US-China amity into rivalry by examining U.S. corporations’ exposures to China over the last three decades. I also look at the lobbying activities of these firms on behalf of China. I discuss how these firms shaped U.S.-China policy over the years. This is a historical materialist explanation for the changes in US-China relations. This shift was ultimately driven by a huge shift of corporate American’s disposition toward China.

Back in the 1990s and 2000s, there was always a vocal voice in the U.S. intelligence-diplomatic-military establishment to try framing China as the next major competitor of the U.S. after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This talk about a new Cold War with China has never ceased ever since the end of the Old Cold War.


Then in 1993-94, a power struggle emerged between the State Department and Wall Street over this US-China trade policy. In 1993, Clinton brought in Robert Rubin from Wall Street to become the first director of the newly created National Economic Council. And at some point, Robert Rubin and Winston Lord feuded openly through the media over China policy. Robert Rubin said adding human rights conditions to China’s low tariff access to the U.S. market was unwise, while Lord said it was working, and that the U.S. should keep the human rights conditions. In the end, the State Department lost the fight, and Wall Street took control of China policy.

Wall Street would not have won this battle over US-China policy had it not been for the aggressive U.S. corporate lobbying mobilized by the Chinese government. Back in 1993, China was in an economic crisis. Its economy was overheating, and there was a balance of payment crisis. The inflation rate hit 25%, and the foreign exchange reserve of China was evaporating. Zhu Rongji was the vice-premier of China at that time and was the person who ran the economy.


In the 1990s, a lot of China’s state-owned enterprises privatized and floated in overseas stock markets like Hong Kong and New York. They relied on Wall Street banks, accounting, and auditing firms for their IPOs. It was a huge business for Wall Street firms. So the privatization of Chinese SOEs over the 1990s was grounded on a CCP-Wall Street synergy. This explains why Wall Street was the earliest and keenest advocate for the CCP’s interests in Washington after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989.


Another example is AT&T. China enlisted the AT&T to lobby for its trade interest by promising that AT&T was going to have a big role to play in China’s telecommunication market. These corporations, motivated by the promises of Beijing, lobbied in earnest against the human rights conditions for Chinese goods’ low-tariff access to the U.S. market. They successfully forced the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats to turn on themselves in 1994, revoking the human rights conditions on China trade that they enthusiastically supported just a year ago. From then on, Chinese exports enjoyed unconditional low-tariff access to the U.S. market, paving the way for China’s eventual accession to the WTO in 2001. Up to 2000, many U.S. corporations were motivated by the promises and expectations Beijing offered them to become a huge countervailing force against any instinct of the intelligence-diplomatic-military establishment to cast China as an enemy and to start a new Cold War with China.

After China got what it wanted in terms of U.S. policy, China changed its policy to make sure foreign companies like AT&T could not have majority stakes and leadership in China’s telecommunication sector. And Beijing started to cultivate its state-owned telecommunication giants like China Mobile and China Telecom to dominate the market and marginalize foreign countries. This situation became much more apparent in 2010 and thereafter.

For example, one company I was tracking had been lobbying against any Congress bill that accused China of currency manipulation from the early 2000s until 2009 and 2010. But after 2010, it found itself the target of China’s mercantilist policy and a victim of China’s forced technology transfer policy. It suddenly changed its position in its Congress lobbying. The same company suddenly started to support the Congressional bill that accused China of currency manipulation. There were many other examples like this.

Many companies shifted their position around 2010. A legal scholar said there was an “anti-China corporate insurgency” in the U.S. In some cases this took a more passive form of not actively lobbying against China. Many corporations that previously lobbied vocally against bills that they saw as violating China’s interests now sat on their hands and did nothing to help China anymore. This is why in recent years, so many bills that irritated Beijing, like all the bills in support of Taiwan and denouncing human rights abuses in Xinjiang, managed to pass in a polarizing Congress with a unanimous bipartisan vote.

The databases I am assembling contain many indicators that consistently show that 2010 is the turning point. The question that follows is: why 2010? In the end, it was the global financial crisis in 2008 and the stimulus in China in 2009 and 2010 that triggered the shift. For example, Caterpillar used to have a large share of the construction machines market in China. Then the leading Chinese state-owned construction machine-making companies, which used to have joint venture relations with Caterpillar, copied the design of its products and became its competitor.

In 2012, Washington began the Pivot to Asia policy, reorienting large part of U.S. military and diplomatic forces to Asia in response to China’s increasing aggressiveness in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. Obama-Clinton also pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement.

The whole purpose of the TPP was to isolate China economically and to put pressure on China to change its economic policy if it wants to join. When Trump got elected, many people in China, including the nationalist tabloids and official scholars, were excited and glad that it was not Hillary Clinton who was going to continue the Pivot to Asia policy and the TPP. They expected that Trump would reset the US-China policy and strike a deal with China that could relieve the U.S. pressure on China.

In the end, it was much worse. The underlying structural change in US-China relations remained the same, though the method is different. Obama was using the TPP as a carrot to lure China to change its economic policy for the sake of U.S. corporate interests. Now Trump is using the stick of tariffs. But the goal remains the same. Behind the increasing willingness of the U.S. to counter China’s economic and geopolitical expansion from the Obama to Trump administration is the same structural condition confronting American corporations.


The dynamics of US-China rivalry is an inter-imperial rivalry driven by inter-capitalist competition. Competition for the world market could soon turn into intensifying clashes of spheres of influence and even war. It is not new. It resembles a lot of the dynamics as described in Lenin’s Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In the book, published in 1917, Lenin talked about the competition between German and British banks to lend to Latin American countries to build railroads and to ensure the projects would rely on German or British supplies. This is just like talking about the competition between China and the U.S. to offer credits to Belt and Road countries to build infrastructure. In the early twentieth century, inter-capitalist competition led to inter-imperial rivalry culminated in two world wars.



Very interesting.  You mention Lenin. His  Internationale Communist wanted to provoke Communist (one-party) governments throughout Europe, replacing multiparty governments. The actual CPP (in Chinese GCD-Gong Chan Dang - "Production for Everyone") is not very Leninist and is more a Confucian governing elite, certainly not promoting World Revolution.