China as a superpower
Submitted by shug on Sun, 2008-08-24 17:45
Got into a discussion last night with a non political friend about China and why it cant become a major capital to compete with America. Tried to explain the organic composition of capital and failed miserably as she argued “But China has got huge resources, manpower, and a growing skill base…..” Is my notion of decadence as a trajectory that precludes new capitals that could compete with the US just another symptom of a befuddled brain? Comments would be welcome.
- Login or register to post comments
Versión para impresora

Comments
China
China is wholly dependent upon the US to purchase its exports. China’s fortunes as an imperialist power are tied to the US bourgeoisie’s own fortunes. China can only survive as the world’s sweatshop. As the costs associated with the variable element of capital becomes too costly for capitalists to maintain adequate rates of profit they will move their labor elsewhere, to countries like Vietnam for example. China only has power because of its exports. International capital made China the sweatshop of the world and this is exactly how China will have to stay in order to succeed on the world capitalist stage. I would urge checking out some of the articles on our webpage on China, particularly China — A boom with feet of clay.
http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2003-08-01/china-a-boom-with-feet-of-clay
Does not the article point to
Does not the article point to China having the option of becoming a major part of an anti-US bloc?
would that open the path for China to become a much more powerful imperialist player?
It seems that already China is challenging the US in Africa and Latin America.
To quote
China is destined to play a role in the foreground of inter-imperialist relations for the near future, not just by the fact that it represents the principal reservoir of labour-power for world capitalism, but also by its enormous territorial and demographic dimensions. In this phase of international politics in which the US is disposed to play all its cards to the fullest extent, not least that of permanent war, merely to maintain its imperialist domination over the world, China, by its dimensions and its strategic geographical position, is destined to be at the centre of the world scene. Its growth of the last decade has caused it to reacquire a foreground role in the East Asian region and the whole Pacific. Its opposition to the Second Gulf War, the ever more tense relations with the US, the threat of shifting its currency reserves towards the euro, the rapprochement with Russia and the ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia and the ever closer political and commercial links with European countries allow us to glimpse China making a choice of its strategic camp in the imperialist conflict which is emerging on the horizon between the US and the axis constituted by France, Germany and Russia. In the present state of affairs, everything is subject to precipitous change, not just the axis of Paris, Berlin and Moscow, but, seeing the preconditions on which its present economic growth is based, China can pass in very little time from boom to an economic recession with catastrophic social consequences.
Perhaps the latest events involving Russia/Georgia/USA will clearly show whether or not China is moving away from the US.
Article from Sunday Times —
Article from Sunday Times — love the comment that America is urging China to become a more balanced economy. Lehman, Bear Sterns,AIG, Merrill Lynch — yup America sure understands what makes a balanced economy.
September 14, 2008
Is it all over for cut-price China?
Michael Sheridan in Hong Kong
THE huge container ships are still a fine sight as they weave through a maze of islands and head out to the South China Sea, but their cargoes are no longer made in the world’s bargain basement.
The fabled “China price” of cheap consumer goods has kept global inflation low, undercut workers in every industrialised nation and brought millions of Chinese peasants into a raw capitalist economy.
That phase of globalisation may now be coming to an end, economists say. The export machine that powered China’s spectacular growth is slowing as the cost of manufacturing in China and shipping goods to Britain goes up daily.
“We are starting to look elsewhere,” said a UK supermarket buyer, “to Israel, eastern Europe, Thailand, Vietnam and in many cases we are getting better prices than from China.”
It costs about £3,000 to ship a 40ft container stuffed with toys or shoes from Shanghai to Manchester, shipping firms said last week. That is more than double the amount charged in the early years when China was a paradise for outsourcing and oil traded at just over $20 a barrel.
Freight costs have pushed some American firms into “reverse globalisation”, moving their manufacturing operations in steel, furniture, electronics and textiles back to America and Mexico.
The harsh arithmetic of shipping is only part of the explanation. But it illustrates the pitfalls for any business model dependent on going halfway around the world in search of the cheapest labour. Even sweatshops, it turns out, have their bottom line.
The energy shock hit Chinese firms hard. Oil at more than $100 a barrel not only pushed up the cost of shipping, but fed through into raw-materials costs for plastics and led to higher electricity rates.
All of that, in turn, pushed up Chinese domestic inflation to nearly 10% and food prices for staples such as pork by 45%. Workers demanded wage increases. A labour law, enacted this year, gave them rights and made unions stronger.
As the labour market evolved and internet usage rose, literate young migrant workers learnt of opportunities elsewhere and voted with their feet against the worst-managed factories in southern China – often those owned and operated by companies from Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. Last year there were labour shortages in the southern provinces for the first time.
Two more factors raised costs for Chinese firms. Determined to drive out bottom-end manufacturers and move production up the value chain, the Chinese government cut tax rebates that had amounted to a 13% export subsidy. It worked so well that some local authorities are having to step in to bail out big employers.
The biggest blow to exporters was the rise of the Chinese yuan against the US dollar and currencies of other trading partners. Not long ago, £1 bought more than 15 yuan. Today sterling trades at about 12 yuan and the differentials are widening.
“Now the pound is weakening against the dollar I’m in the same situation the Chinese have been crying to me about all year – currency,” said the British buyer, who asked not to be named.
“When they had this problem we helped them out. But now it’s reversed, will they help us? No chance. If this attitude prevails, at the low end at any rate, China may start to price itself out of our market.”
The Chinese have their own tale of woe to tell. “The situation here is very severe,” said Zhang Handong, director of Zhejiang province’s foreign trade research centre. “Last year was disastrous. I estimate Zhejiang exporting companies lost 36 billion yuan (£3 billion) in profits.”
Zhejiang’s provincial government stepped in to save its “big dragon” exporter, Feiyue Group, a company with 5,000 employees and reputed to make almost half the world’s specialised stitching machines.
Zhang said Feiyue’s exports fell 44% when tax rebates were cut, the yuan rose and energy prices soared. It owed more than £80m to its bankers. “Local government intervened by ordering the bank not to call in the loan and to continue to extend credit,” said Zhang.
For Qing Yuan, general manager of the Haoxing textile mill, the story is one of profit margins in remorseless decline. “A couple of years ago I could make money with my eyes closed,” he lamented.
Some small firms, like the Buruoyi garment maker in the port of Ningbo, are offering a preferential exchange rate to keep their customers. “If we don’t, foreigners won’t buy our products,” said Xu Zhaolong, a sales manager.
In the first seven months of this year, 3,600 toymakers shut up shop in Guangdong, the export industry hub. Official figures show 67,000 small and medium firms reported losses in the first half of this year.
Planners in Beijing believe that although exporters may be suffering, China needs to become a more balanced economy in which domestic demand drives growth – something that America and other trade partners have urged for years.
The government has also cut corporate income tax to 25% from 31% this year in a sign of its friendliness to business.
While the macroeconomic theory sounds fine, few Chinese exporters and perhaps even fewer foreign customers comprehended how painful the adjustment process would be.
Competitors in southeast Asia have been quick to step in. Vietnam is emerging as China’s main rival for budget manufacturing, although its own growth pains this year include a currency crisis, a property crash and 20% inflation.
Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia have all seen their competitive edge improve.
Uncertainty has ruined investor sentiment and led the Chinese stock markets to their lowest levels in 21 months. The Shanghai Composite Index has lost 46% of its value since its record high last year.
China’s state media spoke last week of “renewed fears over slower economic growth”. Yet before gloom turns into a real depression it is worth recalling that China achieved growth of more than 10% in the second quarter of this year.
Export growth slowed last month even though the country achieved yet another monthly record trade surplus of more than £16 billion.
“Exports growth decelerated but imports posted a much bigger slowdown as commodities prices and shipping rates slumped,” a Ministry of Commerce official told Xinhua, the state news agency.
The unnamed official gave a hint of how the Chinese government intended to manage the volatility by holding the currency steady. “This can help exports while giving no further incentives to imports,” he said.
But the authorities in Beijing are likely to discover it is easier to navigate a giant container ship round the channels off Hong Kong than to turn round a giant economy at full steam.
China and Decadence
Shug first raised the question of China in relation to the notion that under capitalist decadence (or as we would put it in the imperialist epoch of capital) there can be now new independent development of capital. This is a mechanical reading of imperialism (which has already shown that it can take on many guises from colonialism to informal domination) but in any case it poses the question of what you mean by “independent”. In a sense China is not an independent development since it required all the big capitals of the West to invest (£50 billion a year in the 1990s according to the FT a few months back) in it to start the process. And the whole globalisation business means that the interlinking of the world economy is such that the US has been essential to China’s export market until now. Indeed the connection of the US debt and the rise of super-exploitation in China are deeply linked and this is the reason for the global crisis deepening over the last few months as the article above hints. Another article worth looking at is Martin Walker’s on UPI called China and the Dollar” which goes into the fomer virtuous ricle of US debt being covered by China buying US bonds etc. What it means is that there is a shift in the imperialist pecking order where the relative demise of US domination is actually more significant than the rise of China but China’s new type of imperilaism (“coolie capitalism”)is anew and significant factor in global instability (see the latest Revolutionary Perspectives 47 for article on Chinese imperilaism in Africa (£3 from CWO address).