Chongqing Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai, a chief representative of the so-called “new left” tendency, was dismissed after Premier Wen Jiabao warned of a “new” Cultural Revolution.
More...
Chongqing Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai, a chief representative of the so-called “new left” tendency, was dismissed after Premier Wen Jiabao warned of a “new” Cultural Revolution.
More...
Who is one to believe? WSWS is certainly suspect in all matters of this nature. On the face of it it's pretty obvious what it looks like, capitalist's triumph. Reading this account one cannot help but see the similarities with the Soviet Union in the 60's and 70's. So now I know more and still understand nothing.
Here are some "red" flags (so to speak) in this report that says more than is written:
[quote]Bo’s dismissal reflects the CCP leadership’s fears that his superficial invocation of neo-Maoist rhetoric, designed to assuage popular anger over rising social equality in China, might unintentionally provoke political opposition in the working class. The CCP is highly sensitive to any sign of popular opposition, as it is now considering a wide-ranging free-market restructuring in the interests of China’s “red capitalists” and Western finance capital.[quote]
My bolding. Bo's "superficial invocation of neo-Maoist rhetoric". Not that Bo actually hold to Maoist doctrines (not to claim just rhetoric). Then the author speaks of popular anger over "rising social equality"? Granted that might be a typo (but given these hysterical Trots, I can't be sure). This "might provoke opposition in the working class"? This author is just damning everyone at every turn - Bo superficial, touting neo-Maoist rhetoric, the government fears the working class (therefore not "of" it) and is also "red capitalists", and the working class itself is just some docile, mass waiting to be provoked into an opposition by superficial rhetoric.
The rest of it is spin. Bo is not the perfect restorer of Mao, can't be. But was he headed in a better direction that the central government? Maybe, it all depends on how you spin the Cultural Revolution...
[QUOTE=Dhalgren;405829]Here are some "red" flags (so to speak) in this report that says more than is written:
[quote]Bo’s dismissal reflects the CCP leadership’s fears that his superficial invocation of neo-Maoist rhetoric, designed to assuage popular anger over rising social equality in China, might unintentionally provoke political opposition in the working class. The CCP is highly sensitive to any sign of popular opposition, as it is now considering a wide-ranging free-market restructuring in the interests of China’s “red capitalists” and Western finance capital.That's it right there, 'damning everyone at every turn'. Is that not the hallmark of the idealist? Yet much of the inside hustle does sound disturbingly like what the KKE described in their paper. Is Bo an opportunists? Are there degrees of opportunism which might be tolerated under circumstances? Hell if I know. Shit, it would probably been better to not have read the thing for I am no wiser.
My bolding. Bo's "superficial invocation of neo-Maoist rhetoric". Not that Bo actually hold to Maoist doctrines (not to claim just rhetoric). Then the author speaks of popular anger over "rising social equality"? Granted that might be a typo (but given these hysterical Trots, I can't be sure). This "might provoke opposition in the working class"? This author is just damning everyone at every turn - Bo superficial, touting neo-Maoist rhetoric, the government fears the working class (therefore not "of" it) and is also "red capitalists", and the working class itself is just some docile, mass waiting to be provoked into an opposition by superficial rhetoric.
The rest of it is spin. Bo is not the perfect restorer of Mao, can't be. But was he headed in a better direction that the central government? Maybe, it all depends on how you spin the Cultural Revolution...
[QUOTE=blindpig;405830][QUOTE=Dhalgren;405829]Here are some "red" flags (so to speak) in this report that says more than is written:
I've been following this story for more than a week. Without reading the WS article, I can tell you guys that Bo was slated to become one of the standing room nine at the bery top of China's leadership. He was popular for cracking down on corruption within his region BUT he committed the unforgivable sin of embarrassing the Party when one of his top lieutenants opened up to the American consulate. What was said is unclear but it was enough to oust Bo for a liberal rival that he had previously vanquished.Bo’s dismissal reflects the CCP leadership’s fears that his superficial invocation of neo-Maoist rhetoric, designed to assuage popular anger over rising social equality in China, might unintentionally provoke political opposition in the working class. The CCP is highly sensitive to any sign of popular opposition, as it is now considering a wide-ranging free-market restructuring in the interests of China’s “red capitalists” and Western finance capital.
That's it right there, 'damning everyone at every turn'. Is that not the hallmark of the idealist? Yet much of the inside hustle does sound disturbingly like what the KKE described in their paper. Is Bo an opportunists? Are there degrees of opportunism which might be tolerated under circumstances? Hell if I know. Shit, it would probably been better to not have read the thing for I am no wiser.
Capitalist new outlets have been cheering this turn, although with some guarded reservation
Read the article, can't belive it doesn't mention Bo's sin of spilling family secrets. My other big objection with this story (and even WS can't help but be ambivalent -- noting that Bo is one of the so-called princelings) is that its much more likely the leadership is worried about a repeat of Tianenmen politically than some kind of reenactment of the Cultural Revolution (which, I believe I read also caught Bo in its sweep ironically enough)
So, do you think this is purely a matter of party discipline and not an episode in the slide towards unapologetic capitalism?Originally Posted by Kid of the Black Hole
Not at all sure and its possible the whole thing was a setup along ideologial lines. But I think its equally possible that it was a case of "outside the tent pissing in" too
A better article here:
A critical moment in China
It is now world news that Bo Xilai, a high-ranking member of the 25-member Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party, has been removed from his key post as Party Secretary of the important Chongqing branch of the CCP.
This move comes as the CCP is preparing to choose a new leadership this fall. Bo had been widely regarded as a clear candidate for the nine-member standing committee of the Politburo. That is now out. This is the first open breach in the Chinese CCP leadership in two decades.
Bo was known for trying to revive the culture of Mao Zedong through many public programs. He emphasized state intervention in the economy and advocated planning for massive low-income housing projects for migrant workers and others, as well as fighting to reduce inequality in general.
Bo has also been known for a fierce anti-corruption campaign in which the masses were encouraged to point out corrupt officials and gangsters. Several thousand people were arrested, among them business people, and many were sent to jail. The highest police official in Chongqing was executed during the anti-corruption campaign.
Bo was removed after an incident in which the subsequent police chief of Chongqing, Wang Lijun, who worked with Bo in a widely celebrated anti-corruption campaign, fled Chongqing on Feb. 6 to the U.S. Consulate in the nearby city of Chengdu and asked for political asylum.
According to Chinese government and party sources, Wang claimed to have documents incriminating Bo. Wang was taken from the consulate, and is now being held in Beijing.
There has been much speculation about Bo and Wang and what happened. Much has been alleged about Bo’s flamboyant personal style, his ambition, a factional struggle within the leadership for position and so on. Perhaps all these factors played some role in his ouster.
But one thing is clear. The imperialists have all taken a position against Bo, and are overjoyed to see his downfall.
To be sure, there is no evidence that Bo was trying to abandon the reliance on capitalism in China’s development that followed the death of Mao. On the contrary, his outlook is fully within the general framework of using capitalism and foreign investment to grow the economy in Chongqing. But within that framework, he emphasized the so-called “third hand,” the need for the state to play a significant role in the economy, to ensure the well-being of the masses and to reduce inequality as a matter of priority.
Effect of global capitalist crisis
It is important to put this struggle in the broader context of the global capitalist crisis and its effect on the Chinese economy and on the political and factional struggle inside China.
The economic crisis in the capitalist world has undermined in a very fundamental way the argument that China should bank its fate and future on capitalist development and the capitalist world market as a foundational strategy.
The collapse in 2007-2009 of the world capitalist financial system and the global market, the ensuing mass unemployment, the wild speculation, the overproduction, the economic dislocation, the flood of bankruptcies, the gyrations of the stock markets and the continuing threats on the horizon must haunt all of China’s leaders and give ammunition to all those who oppose the further unleashing of capitalism in China.
The imperialists and the more pro-capitalist forces in the CCP and the state know this. So they have rushed to fortify their position in the face of the monumental evidence of the failure of capitalism and its dangerous effects in China during 2008 and 2009.
They made their moves just as China’s legislative body was preparing to consider and approve various plans and when the subject of future leadership was under private discussion.
It is significant that the World Bank presented a 448-page document just in time for the 18th National People’s Congress last month, entitled “China 2030.” What makes the public presentation of this document so ominous is that it was co-authored by the Development Research Center of the State Council, the top executive body in China. Liu He, who worked on the document and who meets regularly with U.S. officials, is an adviser to the standing committee of the Politburo who has argued publicly that foreign pressure should be used to push capitalist reforms in China.
To underscore the collaborative nature of the document, the subtitle is “Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative High-Income Society.” The term “Harmonious Society” is the slogan of China’s present leaders, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.
The world was treated to a video circulated online in February that showed Du Jianguo, editor of an environmental magazine in China, disrupting a press conference by World Bank President Robert Zoellick as Zoellick was unveiling his document. In front of the world press, Du stood up and denounced the document as “unconstitutional,” saying it would “subvert the basic economic system of socialism.” Before he was pushed off the platform by security, Du called the bankers’ document “poison” aimed at capturing China’s markets for international capitalists. (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 23)
World Bank’s attempt
to promote counterrevolution
This document is part of the background to the factional struggle in China. It represents a firmer and more dangerous nexus between imperialism and the so-called “reform” faction, the more aggressive pro-capitalist faction, in China.
The Executive Summary of the document reads:
“First, implement structural reforms to strengthen the foundations for a market based economy by redefining the role of government, reforming and restructuring state enterprises and banks, developing the private sector, promoting competition, and deepening reforms in the land, labor, and financial markets. As an economy approaches the technology frontier and exhausts the potential for acquiring and applying technology from abroad, the role of government and its relationship to markets and the private sector needs to change fundamentally. While providing relatively fewer ‘tangible’ public goods and services directly, the government will need to provide more intangible public goods and services like systems, rules, and policies, which increase production efficiency, promote competition, facilitate specialization, enhance the efficiency of resource allocation, protect the environment, and reduce risks and uncertainties.
“In the enterprise sector, the focus will need to be further reforms of state enterprises (including measures to recalibrate the role of public resources, introduce modern corporate governance practices including separating ownership from management, and implement gradual ownership diversification where necessary), private sector development and fewer barriers to entry and exit, and increased competition in all sectors, including in strategic and pillar industries. In the financial sector, it would require commercializing the banking system, gradually allowing interest rates to be set by market forces, deepening the capital market, and developing the legal and supervisory infrastructure to ensure financial stability and build the credible foundations for the internationalization of China’s financial sector.”
In other words, the World Bank, with the collaboration of the Development Research Center of the State Council, is recommending that state enterprises be reduced to dispensers of state services and advice, withdraw from the production of infrastructure, steel, energy and other “tangible goods,” and leave that to private capitalists. They further recommend that the banking system be integrated with world imperialist finance capital and that state planning be reduced to a nullity.
In short, they advocate the destruction of the very socialist structures that hold Chinese society together and that have enabled it to withstand the most severe capitalist crisis since World War II.
For a representative of the highest state body to help draft such a counterrevolutionary document, publicly associate his name with it and urge its adoption shows the degeneration of key sections of the highest leadership and, within the broader state apparatus, highlights the pernicious influence of unleashed capitalism in China.
This explains the urgent disruption of Zoellick’s press conference and the push-back that is coming from various quarters in China. This is not to say that the viewpoint represented by the World Bank document will be victorious. There are many forces in China, including the workers and peasants, who would strongly resist any attempt to fully implement this program.
Christine LaGarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, also chose the moment of the National People’s Congress to issue a statement in high praise of China’s economy. This was undoubtedly coordinated with the World Bank presentation of “China 2030.”
The severity of the struggle over the future of China also broke out in the open at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January.
“A group of Chinese speakers warned in stringent tones on Friday morning [Jan. 27] in Davos that the country’s free-market reform is stalled, and China is sliding backwards towards greater state control of the economy.
“Hu Shuli, editor of Caixin Magazine and widely recognized leader of China’s ‘reform’ faction, launched a breakfast forum by identifying delayed economic reform as one of the two key risks for the Chinese economy going forward, alongside the weakening exports in the wake of the euro-zone crisis.” (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 27) Other Chinese participants agreed.
The world capitalist crisis has brought this struggle on at a crucial time of change in the Chinese leadership. The ouster and public humiliation of Bo, which brought this struggle to light, can best be understood in terms of a struggle over dangerously deepening capitalist reforms. With or without Bo, this serious struggle will continue.
For those who believe that there has been a complete restoration of capitalism in China, this whole matter may seem to be of little importance. But to the workers and peasants of China and to the rest of the world, the question of stopping the further advance of the counterrevolution is of supreme importance.
To be continued.
http://www.workers.org/2012/world/china_0329/
Hey BP, another guy who should be on your radar is Michael Roberts.
Here is a link to his blog and his comment on Bo+China in particular (which he acknowledges is a contentious hot potato)
http://thenextrecession.wordpress.co...-two/#comments
More dirt spilling out:
Not sure what this really means although I've never been 100% convinced the sacking was totally ideologically motivated
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-chin...133730587.html
BEIJING (Reuters) - The scandal shaking China's ruling Communist Party just as it readies for leadership change was triggered by claims that the wife of one ambitious candidate was involved in the death of a British businessman, said a source with close ties to key individuals involved.
The comments, corroborated by two other sources who also spoke on condition of anonymity, are the first direct account of events which eventually led to this month's downfall of Chongqing mega-city chief Bo Xilai who had very publicly bid for a place in the Party's inner circle later this year.
The source, citing accounts coming from an unfinished central investigation, said it was unclear how much truth there was to the claim by Bo's former police chief, Wang Lijun, but he told Reuters he had "no doubt" that Wang had raised it with Bo.
Wang told Bo in late January that he believed Bo's wife, Gu Kailai, was involved in the death of British businessman Neil Heywood in the southwest Chinese city in mid-November, the source said.
The account helps explain the apparent rupture between the city chief and Wang, who led Bo's widely applauded crackdown on crime in China's most populous metropolis.
In early February, Wang briefly sought refuge in the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, several hours' drive from Chongqing, which suddenly made the growing scandal public.
Bo, 62, and his wife have disappeared from public view since his abrupt removal on March 15 as party chief of Chongqing, and they cannot respond publicly to the rumors and reports. Nor can Wang, who is under investigation.
The Chongqing government has not answered repeated phone calls and faxed questions from Reuters about the circumstances of Bo's downfall and Heywood's death. The central government has said the results of its investigation into Wang's flight to the consulate will be released, but to date it has not offered a detailed account.
BO SCORNS ACCUSATIONS
The Foreign Ministry has also not answered questions about Heywood, with a spokesman saying that he had no information.
In a news conference days before his dismissal, Bo scorned as nonsense unspecified accusations of misdeeds by his wife and said some people were pouring "filth on my family". Gu was formerly a high-powered lawyer.
"Wang Lijun has told central investigators that Gu Kailai turned on the British man because of economic interests and that she wanted to destroy him (Heywood)," said the source, who is generally sympathetic to Bo.
Beijing- and London-based relatives of Heywood told Reuters in separate interviews that they did not suspect foul play in his death. They both spoke on condition of anonymity.
"It's preposterous. The more description (in the media), the darker it becomes," the family member said, occasionally breaking into tears in an interview in the lobby lounge of a hotel on the outskirts of Beijing late on Thursday.
The family denied reports that Heywood was a spy and that he was cremated against their wishes.
"We requested the cremation. We were not forced to do so. We have no doubts about the police report," said one family member.
The British Embassy in Beijing has asked the Chinese government to reinvestigate his death, attributed by Chongqing police to cardiac arrest due to over-consumption of alcohol.
Heywood, 41, was not a heavy drinker, but was a chain smoker. His father, Peter, also died of a heart attack after drinks over dinner at his London home in 2004 at age 63, the family members said.
Bo's dismissal has also raised questions over whether China's leaders will start to attack his popular "Chongqing model" that he said promoted more equitable development in the world's second biggest economy but where much of the population still struggles to make a living.
"The split in the public reflects rifts among leaders over views of Chongqing," said the source.
"Bo Xilai was a bold experimenter who was like a catfish stirring up China's stagnant political pond. His enemies couldn't catch him until now," said the source, who knows Bo and his family and has close ties to other senior leaders.
He said that according to Wang, Gu believed Heywood had abused or taken Bo family funds to which the Briton might have had access. Heywood's family members said he had no business dealings with the Bos.
CONFRONTATION
The source's account of Wang Lijun's accusations tallies with details that have emerged about the drama that unfolded before he took flight to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, where he stayed for 24 hours before officials coaxed him out.
The emerging accounts help explain why central leaders decided to risk the aftershocks triggered by unseating Bo, an ex-commerce minister known both for revolutionary style populism and for his courting of multinationals.
By the time Wang arrived at the U.S. consulate, his relationship with his long-time patron, Bo, had already curdled into mutual distrust, said the source.
According to the source and previous accounts reported by Reuters, Wang feared that Bo, eager to preserve his reputation and chances for a spot in the next central leadership, could turn on him after central party investigators began probing Wang's past.
About a week before his flight to the consulate, Wang told Bo about his suspicions about the death of Heywood, a business consultant who was instrumental in Bo's son attending Harrow, an exclusive private school in England.
Heywood knew the Bo family from the time when he lived in China's northeastern port city of Dalian, where Bo was mayor from 1993 to 2000.
"(Wang) told Bo that the problem couldn't be covered up," said the source.
Bo was outraged, said the source, who has met both men. Days later, Bo demoted Wang to the much less powerful role of vice mayor for education, culture and science.
Bo initially tried to muffle the allegations, but the former police chief's flight to the consulate brought the rupture between the men into the open, said the source.
Even if Wang's suspicions over Heywood's death prove unfounded, Bo's initial failure to report the case could end his political career, said the source.
"In the central leadership's view, that was too late. They said he should have reported the problem as soon as Wang Lijun raised allegations about Gu Kailai."
Jesus, this whole thing is becoming so muddied it may never be cleared-up. But just the movie rights alone will make someone a fortune...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
