China's "New Left" views government power as a remedy for free-market capitalist inequalities

[Better Believe It]

For China’s new left, old values
Young movement views state power as remedy for free-market inequalities
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post
April 19, 2009

BEIJING - Zuo Dapei took the microphone and declared that China's leaders were going in the wrong direction. The country had become too capitalist. Things would improve, he continued, only if the state reasserted its control over corporate assets. The crowd of about 220 people, who had come to hear Zuo and other authors and academics speak on the topic of "Unhappy China," cheered.

Although the New Left has been publishing position papers in journals and on the Internet since the 1990s, the global financial crisis has brought the group's leading figures into the spotlight as never before. Their rise comes as the Communist Party, which has held absolute power since 1949, faces growing discontent over unemployment, contaminated infant formula that has sickened more than 300,000 babies, shoddy construction that led to the collapse of thousands of school buildings during last year's Sichuan earthquake and corruption among public officials at all levels.

In a country where the state is often quick to crush criticism, Communist officials have tolerated the New Left, which is just one part of a broader phenomenon of emboldened Chinese questioning officials and speaking out about the failings of their government.

The New Left's appeal is built on the work of prominent academics, including Zuo, 58, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Tsinghua University professors Cui Zhiyuan, 47, and Wang Hui, 50. They have become especially popular among young people, farmers and laid-off factory workers.

Wang, a professor of humanities who is considered the leading New Leftist, has said that China is caught between two extremes: "misguided socialism" and "crony capitalism."

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30290632#storyContinued

[Laelth]

1. Sounds like our "old left."

Sad when China is more progressive than the U.S.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Better Believe It]

3. We're talking about a small but growing minority in China.

The "left" both new and old is probably much larger per capita in the United States than in China and will grow a lot more (along with the extreme right) as a result of this economic crisis.

So I can't really agree that either the Chinese government or people are at this point in time more "progressive" than the government or most people in the United States and most matters. On some issues, yes, but not necessarily most.

[Laelth]

8. I hear you.

I was speaking with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek and making a jab at "centrist" Democrats.

:)

:dem:

-Laelth

[jody]

2. Free-market capitalism is better than central planned production of goods and services as long as it

does not produce monopolies or oligopolies that threaten a nation's economy if they fail and profits are shared with all citizens.

Sounds like that is the direction China's "New Left" is heading.

[Better Believe It]

5. How about democracy and a planned economy?

The American "free market capitalist" model has been tried and it caused this world-wide disaster!

Does anyone really think that the human race is stuck forever with "free market capitalism" and that a new, more democratic and progressive economic system can't arise in the 21st Century?

I'm not sure what it will be called. Some leaders in Latin America are calling it "socialism for the 21st century" that won't be based on the old Soviet Union model.

[jody]

6. Please define "planned economy" specifically re individual goods and services to be produced. n/t

[readmoreoften]

7. That's a long discussion. You're the one who criticized a planned economy, so maybe you should start

with your criticisms.

A planned economy could work in a number of ways. There could be input by users before products were created. Test models could be tried out by focus groups. So much innovation comes from public universities anyway I don't really see the problem. A planned economy would be vastly different than the planned economies of the past, considering the technologies available now. The issue isn't so much "can a planned economy work?" The issue is more: how would average people overthrow those who own factories, 21st century military apparatuses, etc? I'm sure we can run the world without bankers and profiteers. The problem is how to fight them.

One thing is for certain: nation-state socialism is impossible. There will either be global capitalism (and an end to us) or there will be an end to global capitalism. But a planned economy can only thrive if it isn't involved in permanent warfare against powerful capitalist nations. Any glimmering of a planned economy will guarantee isolation leading to widespread starvation or military intervention by a "Western democracy" usually using one's angry religious extremists or nationalists or, if that fails, bribery (i.e. the invasions/sanctions against socialist/left governments such as: Nicaragua, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (in the 50s), Guatemala (in the 50s), Chile (in the 70s), El Salvador, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.....)

[jody]

10. Thanks but I 'll wait and reply to Better Believe It. n/t

[Duer 157099]

4. Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it

It looks like perhaps China is reading America's capitalist history as a cautionary tale.

[Vidar]

9. I hope China does better with the world than we have.

[Deja Q]

11. Based on their existing actions, you already know the answer to your inquiry.

It's a four letter word, that starts with the letter "n" and whose last two letters are "pe", and isn't "nape". :evilfrown: