They say China is a Communist nation. Is it really?
Wikipedia defines Communism this way:
"Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."
And, just so it's clear, Wikipedia's definition of Socialism:
"Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer."
The 'successes' of China are commonly recorded in terms of commerce. I don't know enough about China to comment on its egalitarianism, its classlessness, but what I know about sweatshops and capitalism suggests that China is anything but Communist - at least according to these definitions.
Here's what Wikipedia says about Capitalism:
"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy."
What do they call a system where wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are the only things that matter, regardless of who owns the means of production? That's more what China's about, isn't it?
All this talk about China and Tiananmen Square, and my upcoming adventure to Cuba, got me thinking ....
I'm really opposed to the concentration of power, or the concentration of wealth. Whenever power is held by a few, there is corruption and violence and greed. Governments, at least those constructed within patriarchal power structures, are highly centralized. With few exceptions, there is very little communication between the elected officials and the populace. In a capitalist nation it's all about getting elected, and then ruling over the masses until it's time to pretend you care about them enough that they'll vote for you again, all the while serving only the wealthy elite, the richest of the capitalists.
I'm willing to bet the quest for power, for getting elected, is also true in socialist nations that have a one person one vote voting system, though I've heard Sweden has a lot of referendums, and make some effort to gather public opinion in between elections. In Cuba people vote for local representatives who are then able to vote for the higher levels of government. That's not so different from how it works here in Canada - if you've ever been a member of a political party and tried to get someone elected, you'll see how forbidding a system it is.
As a small business entrepreneurial person, I'm not keen on living with a government that owns everything. I think some things should be collectively, rather than privately managed --- things like health care, and education, and resources (water, hydro, electric, forests). It's ridiculous to hand those over to a corporate entity whose only concern is the fiscal bottom line. Decades of public ownership in Canada have proven that we are capable of managing our own resources, hospitals, and schools. Only in recent years, with neo-liberal underfunding schemes designed to lead to privatization (let's break it and give it the corporation to 'fix' it), have those previously publically owned entities started to fall apart.
So I'm not opposed to collective ownership, or co-operative decision making. Neither am I opposed to small business ventures which encourage imaginative solutions and creative outlets for individuals who want to offer up media or music or food in a different and more independent way. It's the gigantic 30 rock corporate entities with tax-exemption status and enormously concentrated power and decision making that are the problem.
What about this, then ...... what if we were to elect socialist governments, but allow some capitalist ventures (if they're earth and people friendly and non-exploitative) so people can make money independently, and contribute to a collective pot that's distributed for the benefit of all? So a government wouldn't be entirely in control of everything, but neither would they be in the business of selling everything off to their capitalist friends, making the rich richer and the poor poorer - as is happening here in Canada?
Wait a minute .... I think that's what the CCF was about - the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Maybe, if someone were to resurrect it (with some changes, like allowing small scale capitalism and including women who understand consensus based decision making), I might be tempted to vote again someday. Because what's going on here right now is just a mess and I don't want any part of it.
