Three weeks in Hong Kong
Posted on Monday 18 January, 2010
Filed Under International
I’M OVER the jet lag, I’ve done my first day in the office, and now it’s now evening in Hong Kong. But instead of maxing out the company credit card down in Wan Chai, I am sitting in my rented apartment at Causeway Bay, making sure that the Wi-Fi works so that I can carry on blogging.
For the next three weeks, I will be based in this undeniably impressive high-rise city, and will probably be taking some trips to other countries in the region. At the very least, there’s a conference in Singapore next week, and I plan to make an excursion over the border to Shenzhen special economic zone one weekend.
On the political side of things, I have the contact numbers for some local labour movement activists, and a stack of the latest radical books on China. One of the things I’ll be trying to work out is how come a notable wave of soft Sinophilia has overtaken certain sections of the British left.
This is, on the face of it, very odd. Beijing’s human rights record and its continued repression in Tibet and Xinjiang speak for themselves. From a democratic socialist perspective, they don’t say good things, either.
Some far left groups are beyond help, of course. The Morning Star can at least point to a long tradition of preparedness to overlook certain flaws in one party states, so long as that party proclaims itself communist.
Meanwhile, the Sparts, Workers’ Power and the normally more sensible Socialist Party all maintain that China is still in some distorted sense a ‘workers’ state’, and thus in need of defence against what they insist on calling ‘capitalist restoration’. That position does not sit too well with the very obvious real world turbocapitalism I have already witnessed over here, and expect to see more of in China proper.
There’s also blogger Andy Newman, who has written many pro-Beijing posts in the last couple of years. One recent example is his positive write-up of CPBer Jenny Clegg’s ‘China’s Global Strategy’. Comrade Newman argues that China’s turn to the market is ‘misunderstood’, and praises the Communist Party for ‘seeking to leverage its control of the state to promote economic and social development’. This, of course, entails making a new capitalist class extremely rich. But hey, let’s not nitpick.
Also unintentionally hilarious is his reflection that the urban intellectuals experienced the cultural revolution ‘most negatively’. I suppose that’s one way of describing a few years of forced labour in the countryside. Still, at least it knocked the book learnin’ out of most of ‘em.
The Clegg book is sitting on my bedside table, alongside Martin Jacques’ ‘When China Rules the World’ and a compilation of Marx’s journalism on China. I’ll be doing some reviews once I have ploughed through them.
In the meantime, many of the posts on this blog from now until early February will presumably reflect the environment. I don’t proclaim myself an expert on all things Chinese, but I do hope that this trip is going to teach me a lot.
<<Go back
Comments
54 Responses to “Three weeks in Hong Kong”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
If time permits, go to Chunking Mansions on the Kowloon side [they keep the old Wade-Giles spelling FYI] and tell us how much is charged these days for a hot-off-the-printing press fake degree in any discipline of your choice.
Not that anyone cares much about who has an M.Sc from Aston University in Peace Studies, but I’d be inclined to worry about, say, my daughter having cranial surgery performed by someone with a Chungking Mansions degree. Or a Khaosarn Road degree obtained in Bangkok, for that matter.
While in Honkers, DO find time to check out the live animal market. Don’t take any PETA adherents or RSPCA helpers with you, though. No cameras, either.
“Meanwhile, the Sparts, Workers’ Power and the normally more sensible Socialist Party all maintain that China is still in some distorted sense a ‘workers’ state’, and thus in need of defence against what they insist on calling ‘capitalist restoration’. That position does not sit too well with the very obvious real world turbocapitalism I have already witnessed over here, and expect to see more of in China proper.”
Workers’ state and capitalism are not incompatible. One describes the character of the state, while the other simply asserts that private ownership of capital is still a significant factor in the economy.
While China is undeniably in a capitalism mode of production, this doesn’t mean that the state is not a workers state.
“Comrade Newman argues that China’s turn to the market is ‘misunderstood’, and praises the Communist Party for ‘seeking to leverage its control of the state to promote economic and social development’. This, of course, entails making a new capitalist class extremely rich. But hey, let’s not nitpick.”
Come on, this is unbelievably utopian for someone who is in the Labour Party. This is naive anti-capitalism, the idea that capitalism is always to be opposed, regardless of context. Capitalism has driven development and destroyed the remenants of the old feudal state. It has also lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty.
Dave, if you’re planning on coming a little farther abroad I’m living in Kyoto this year on my study abroad, working with the Japanese Communist Party (420,000 members, 5 million voters,I look shamefully at the floor when people ask me about the British Far Left) doing my bit for the upcoming elections and working with the Party within the wider “Anti-Povery Group” NGO and their grassiest of the grass-roots work with the homeless.
If you make it to Nippon it’d be great to chat East, West and revolution over a fine Japanese Single Malt!
Pointless comments about the utter inadequacy of Marxists to develop analytical constructs to reconcile the Chinese contradictions you mentioned in your blog entry aside, I would simply add this:
Find a nice local girl and get the old knob polished.
Check out temple street market towards the top end a tin shed of bars and restaurants in Kowloon for the cheapest Tsingtao and the worse toilets in the world
This must be strong contender for the stupidest, most politically illiterate and ignorant comment of 2010 (why not start a competition?):
“While China is undeniably in a capitalism mode of production, this doesn’t mean that the state is not a workers state” – Simon
Capitalism has been with us for thousands of years as long back as goods and people have been sold for profit. The pretend middle class socialist lot are just capitalists trying to muscle in on the profit like China and the former Soviet Union. Most of the clever pretend socialists end up in highly paid jobs and some carry on the pretence, like ‘I am trying to change the system from within’. Aye right!
Yes, Jimmy, could I ask you once again what precisely you do for a living and what your annual income is, so that we might assess the validity of your contempt for the middle class? Stuff like “I’ve done my bit” and various relapses into ersatz Glaswegian-Jamaican patois won’t do, I want a straight answer to a straight question. Isn’t that how working class people operate?
Funny how many former Stalinists and Maoists are now effectively labour and security contractors for Western capital. Delivering a docile and terrorised labour force to key Multi-Nationals is a lucrative business.
Like the State that never seemed to quite ‘wither away’ the process of ‘leveraging’ workers into hyper-exploitation will carry on, even as China’s indicators of ‘social development’ continue to decline.
I suspect these developments are welcomed by people like Newman for rather obvious reasons – the discredited model of socialism he adheres to is unlikely to find popular support, but Tankies can still make a decent living as as a privileged social layer between the management and the rank and file.
In fact to Newman the social elevation of this bureaucratic layer, whether as mediator or master, is the very essence of ‘socialism.’
“Also unintentionally hilarious is his reflection that the urban intellectuals experienced the cultural revolution ‘most negatively’. I suppose that’s one way of describing a few years of forced labour in the countryside”
this point is actualy derived from Mobo Gao’s excellent book “the battle for China’s Past2
his point is a serious one, that the cultural revolution was experienced as a positive thing by many millions of peasants, but their voices are not heard in the West, nor indeed by the current leadership of the CCP.
Gao points out, for example, Jung Chang’s own testimony in “Wild Swans” describes a life of extreme privilege compared to most of the population. There is an inherent elitism in that her biggest complaint is that the extent of her relative privilege was reduced.
And of course the best thing about HK is that the biggest chain of bookshops is named after Swindon!
“Also unintentionally hilarious is his reflection that the urban intellectuals experienced the cultural revolution ‘most negatively’. I suppose that’s one way of describing a few years of forced labour in the countryside”
this point is actualy derived from Mobo Gao’s excellent book “the battle for China’s Past”
sorry that you find the comments of a Chinese intellectual so hilarious
his point is a serious one, that the cultural revolution was experienced as a positive thing by many millions of peasants, but their voices are not heard in the West, nor indeed by the current leadership of the CCP.
Gao points out, for example, Jung Chang’s own testimony in “Wild Swans” describes a life of extreme privilege compared to most of the population. There is an inherent elitism in that her biggest complaint is that the extent of her relative privilege was reduced.
And of course the best thing about HK is that the biggest chain of bookshops is named after Swindon!
Andy , can you wander naked in China ? I mean that is one of your criteria for socialism , though surely that could offend some faith communities . What’s Respects line on public nudity ?
Dave,
Just be careful of your email:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/332874/gmail_foreign_journalists_china_hijacked
If I get the time I’ll blog a bit more on China shortly.
I regularly wander naked through Swindon listening to Elvis on my iPod .
pharisee, unfortunately I do not work for a living I am retired. You can ask what you want. I will answer if I want. That is socialism! I do note you are a serious person with a good memory of what has previously been written. Do you keep a list!! I did have the privilage to work with several Jamaicans. They had a sense of humour. My annual income is meagre, perhaps you could invite me to a piss up at your expense. You would recognise me immediately in my attire.
Simon
I’ve used the capitalist MoP/workers’ state argument myself, as a young USec supporter, with regard to Nicaragua in the 1980s.
The FSLN took concrete steps to benefit the working class. What, in your opinion, is the CCP doing that is comparable?
“You would recognise me immediately in my attire.
Posted by Jimmy Glesga ”
How? Do you dress like Rab E. Nesbitt? You sound like a stage Glaswegian to me. I’ve never heard a Glaswegian say ‘Glesga’. You should be ashamed of yourself, pandering to negative English racist stereotypes of Scots people.
Dave, be careful in China. Capitalist or communist, they’re still slant-eyed devils and you can never tell what they’re thinking.
Isn’t it Rab C Nesbitt? Gregor Fisher, who played Rab, bought a Big Issue from me once: he was perfectly charming.
When wandering naked with an iPod, where do you keep the pod?
‘Jimmy Glasga’ have you considered counselling for your psycho-sexual problems?
“The FSLN took concrete steps to benefit the working class.”
Yes, but that is not what the workers’ state characterisation rests on is it? It isn’t a value judgement, but a question of whether the bourgeois state has been smashed or not.
“What, in your opinion, is the CCP doing that is comparable?”
I would imagine raising living standards and lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty would count, wouldn’t it?
But Pharisee, bourgeois states are undeniably capable of ‘lifting (some) people out of poverty’. Is India – which now has middle class 100m strong – a workers’ state for that reason?
I like to wander through the Brandenburg Gate listening to Elvis and dreaming about Billy Paynter.
“Is India – which now has middle class 100m strong – a workers’ state for that reason?”
I precisely said that benefiting the working class, or indeed anybody, was not a defining characteristic of a workers’ state for those who believe in such things. It was you who introduced this canard in relation to Nicaragua.
Pharisee, how right you are.
And living proof has been provided by ‘Simon’ who comments:
“Workers’ state and capitalism are not incompatible. One describes the character of the state, while the other simply asserts that private ownership of capital is still a significant factor in the economy.”
Which suggests the obvious corollary:
“A fascist state and a socialist economy are not incompatible. One refers to the nature of the state, the other to the absence of private property within the broader economy”
You gotta love the tankies.
joke mucktroosers. It is Rab C and you do have to be in Glesga to hear it not BNP controlled Millwall.
This must be strong contender for the stupidest, most politically illiterate and ignorant comment of 2010 (why not start a competition?):
I’m not sure how recognising a distinction between mode of production and the character of the state constitutes political illiteracy or ignorance. A workers state, within marxist lingo, is the state set up to oversee the transition from a capitalist to a communist mode of production. As such, it must by definition be possible for one to exist in a capitalist mode of production.
If you care to substantiate your comment further I can, perhaps, clear up your confusion.
I’ve used the capitalist MoP/workers’ state argument myself, as a young USec supporter, with regard to Nicaragua in the 1980s.
The FSLN took concrete steps to benefit the working class. What, in your opinion, is the CCP doing that is comparable?
Well, the Chinese state has been successful in using the development generated from foreign capital to benefit its poorest people, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. While India has a comparable growth rate it has not tackled poverty to anywhere near a comparable degree.
This is, of course, besides the point. As the character of the state is not determined simply through deed, but by which class holds political power. Now, in China I feel that there is no simple answer to this question, China for many years now seems to have been in the midst of a struggle between those proletarian political forces and those of the emergent bourgeoisie. I suspect this struggle will become more evident as the contradictions become exaggerated once China reaches a level of development comparable with the west (they have been subdued so far as the interest of both classes largely coincide, clever use of capitalism for the sake of development).
Which suggests the obvious corollary:
“A fascist state and a socialist economy are not incompatible. One refers to the nature of the state, the other to the absence of private property within the broader economy”
You gotta love the tankies.
Recognising a distinction between mode of production and the class which holds political power (do you seriously deny such a distinction?!?) is not the same as believing them to be independent or unrelated. Fascism is a political doctrine associated with the highly illiberal use of political power by the bourgeoisie. As such it would be conceivable for such a state of affairs to coincide with a socialist mode of production, as the result of a particularly brutal counter revolution (one which is yet to fully restore the old capitalist mode of production).
Simon, when you’re in a hole, and you can still see a bit of daylight, stop digging!
Do you actually have a case or are you just trolling?
Simon,
In your view, *who* actually has the final say in China?
The workers? Or the leaders of the CCP?
Final say is generally the National People’s Congress, which is approximate to the leaders of the CCP.
Whether the workers’ state is “degenerated”, “deformed”, or, as I would say “bureaucratic” is not what was being discussed.
Simon,
You took the words right out of my mouth when criticising Winston. He fails to see Fascism as a bourgeois form of rule, so he mistakenly believes you can have a fascist government and a socialist economy, i.e. he believes that the bourgeois could introduce socialism!
I have to wonder if this guy Winston Smith even knows what socialism is!
I also think your observations about China are spot on.
Simon,
You admit it is the ***leaders*** of the CCP that have the final say on things.
So if the Leaders in China run the country, ultimately, then how different is that from *any* capitalist country, where an elite runs it?
Just a slightly difference form, still it is an elite.
Modernity:
I’m sympathetic to the sentiments of that, but I think too much is packed into it and paragraph 2 does not logically flow from para 1.
What else are you doing when you take part in elections other than agreeing to pass on responsibility?
JOHNNO, So you reckon this Winston fellah does not know what socialism is. Easy answer, dictatorship, nepotism, mass murder the Gulag blah, blah, blah, blah and so on. Then more murder and so on. Get the point JOHNNO.
JOHNNO – are you tripping…? My whole point is that you cannot have a Fascist government and a ‘socialist’ economy. Read the comments.
It’s Simon who believes it’s possible – with qualifications. it appears you’ve agreed with my statement, that it’s impossible to have a Fascist state and a ‘socialist’ economy, and attributed Simon’s positon, that it is possible, to me!
JOHNNO, here’s Simon’s statement from 12:55, January 20:
“Fascism is a political doctrine associated with the highly illiberal use of political power by the bourgeoisie. As such it would be conceivable for such a state of affairs to coincide with a socialist mode of production, as the result of a particularly brutal counter revolution (one which is yet to fully restore the old capitalist mode of production).”
To answer Simon’s question: (Do I) Recognis(e) a distinction between mode of production and the class which holds political power (do you seriously deny such a distinction?!
No I do not recognise such a distinction. Mode of Production usually has a technical meaning: it refers to both productive forces (technologies) and the relations of production – law, property relations and power relations.
So Simon, I’m afraid you’re simply deploying a kind vulgar casuistry to disguise the objective contradictions between the State and people of China. Contradictions that cannot be resolved within the context of the anti-democratic CCP.
Good luck. Hong Kong is great fun. Should check out Lantau island and Lamma island too. (Lamma is my favourite.)
Yep, Chungking Mansions is an ‘education’ in itself.
Jacques used to be a resident of Hong Kong. He was doing the rounds of the universities in Hong Kong recently, flogging his new book on China, and I was meaning to drop by one of his presentations. He makes some fair points, but I wanted his views on the recent crackdown in China – where he thinks it is all heading.
Read what Chinese communists say
http://11imcwp.in/content/presentation-cp-china
Winston,
I think Simon is correct in saying a workers state can oversee a capitalist economy, as this is the mode of production preceding a socialist one but a fascist state cannot oversee a socialist economy as this would literally mean disempowering the bourgeois. So your original corollary is logically incorrect in my opinion.
I don’t really care what designation you wish to put upon China, there can be no doubt that the leadership have opened the country up to massive amounts of privatization, and private foreign investment. This has created economic growth, coupled with all the problems you would expect, ecological damage on a huge scale, corruption, social inequality.
However, we should remember the Chinese ‘communist’ party remains in clear control, with the armed power of the state at its command. Trade unionists occupy positions of power that we could only dream of over here and occupy high political status. You would have to convince me that a bourgeois class yet exists who could challenge this power.
In the economic sphere the banks and the commanding heights of the economy still remain in state hands. However, China lives in a capitalist world and must accept this reality; not attracting foreign investment would be economic folly.
In international affairs, China’s approach is far more preferable to the USA’s and its allies. Haiti provides ample evidence of this.
On the CCP being anti ‘democratic’ I would only say that it is weakening democracy by its reforms, and if the state does fall into the hands of the bourgeois, then you can kiss any democracy goodbye. I think the CCP could be called anti freedom and repressive, I would certainly say that.
It is rather laughable and pathetic to see conscious socialists, or at least that’s what they’d have you believe they are, arguing that China is some form of “workers state”.
It is bleeding obvious that it is not a “worker’s state” because it’s not ***run*** by workers.
In the same way that you couldn’t have a woman’s group, composed of **all** men and run by men, you can’t have a worker state which is run by an elite, where there are no workers having a major say.
That is the case in China, it is run by a small elite from the CCP.
Thus, instead of characterising it as “Worker’s State” it would be better to say “A state run by a small elite, where workers and peasants are treated like dirt, etc etc”
Capitalism is “run by a small elite, where workers and peasants are treated like dirt, etc etc”, so…
Not every member of the CCP is part of the elite and not every member of the elite is a member of the CCP.
Exactamundo, Einstein.
Which is why the left favours socialism over both systems.
You’re right, Modernity. The impoverished ‘vision’ of socialism shared by many appears to be, either:
A. Barracks socialism – any institution which abolishes private property: prisons, workcamps, concentration camps, etc, are presumably ‘Socialist’ under this definition.
B. State capitalism – any state governed by a centralised administration that self-designates as ‘communist,’ irrespective of the kind of system it runs internally.
The notion of socialism as workers control, direct democracy, and freedom from the wage system appears to be off the agenda.
What a victory for the right, which has made enormous efforts to characterise socialism in precisely the same terms.
Modernity,
Your view of China is that of hysterical propaganda.
You should at least try to be more objective in your thinking, though having made that observation I think you probably come closer to its true designation than many other socialists.
More’s the pity nowadays that socialists or those who call themselves socialists, can’t read and seem to have problems with basic reasoning skills.
I originally wrote:
“by a small elite from the CCP.”
I did not write that everyone in the CCP is **in**the elite.
There is a not too subtle difference between the two, as any conscious socialist should know, and it is rather perplexing as to why someone would confuse the two.
Again, you can’t have a woman’s group without women. Nor can you have a worker state which is not run by workers.
Finally, please, have a sense of history, Reg Birch and variously CPers have been arguing this nonsense since before you were born, and you know what?
They managed to convince no one, no one.
Workers in Britain could see through this shallow reasoning 40 years ago, and it is much more stark now that rampant capitalism is ploughing through China.
So to argue that China is a workers state, is to insult your intelligence and everyone else’s, because clearly it is not.
China is no more workers state than Romania under Ceausescu was.
So if the Leaders in China run the country, ultimately, then how different is that from *any* capitalist country, where an elite runs it?
Just a slightly difference form, still it is an elite.
Are you suggesting one elite is not preferable to another? The Britain was run by an elite, so how was it any different to Nazi Germany etc… madness. The Chinese bureacracy exercises power on certain terms, other elites opperate on different terms, terms defined by the class politics at their base.
No I do not recognise such a distinction. Mode of Production usually has a technical meaning: it refers to both productive forces (technologies) and the relations of production – law, property relations and power relations.
The relations of production are the relations between workers and capitalists. Political power lies outside of this. The working class mass capture political power in order to build socialism. Do you seriously disagree with the idea of the working class can seize political power? Or do you believe that once this happens all the relations of production will magically transform instantly and the capitalists will expropriate themselves?
“The relations of production are the relations between workers and capitalists. Political power lies outside of this.”
Well, I’m surprised to learn you’re doctrinaire liberal, Simon.
No, political power doesn’t ‘lay outside of the relations between ‘workers’ and ‘capitalists,’ it’s precisely structured by and conditional upon these relations.
Again:
“Do you seriously disagree with the idea of the working class can seize political power? ”
Er, no. But they certainly can’t do so through the actions of a substitutionist vanguard seizing power on their behalf, as demonstrated by the situaton in China.
Interessanter Blog und danke f
Comrades, Achtung!
See Simon perform for disciplined Party Cadres at the Marxism 1977 (CPBML) conference.
Reg Bird is in the backing band, and pissed – as usual.
Now we know why China banned Google.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=XYzo1NebtDk