back to the index of China

Chapter 3

The FLTI on a war foot against revisionism in Marxism, which aims to justify the betrayal to the World proletarian revolution and the counterrevolutionary offensives of imperialism

China and India:

A counter-tendency in the midst of the stagnation of the world economy, or the parrot–liars repeating the discourse of imperialism about “a new engine of the world economy”?

In the Anglo–Saxon left influenced by the Obamamania, there is a particularity. These leftists are frightened by the crisis of the financial capital, or just hurt or touched by it; these leftist want to make the world proletariat believe that the world is not partitioned, let alone will it be partitioned by means of the guns voice (as Lenin and the III International said). They want to make the world proletariat believe that within the breaches of the world economy –as we will see further– an ‘imperialist China’ has emerged, like the rabbit coming out of a wizard’s hat or thanks to the magic exerted by Merlin the wizard. This “imperialist power” in its expansion, would be capable of disputing to US the spheres of influence all around the world.
Some of these gentlemen are very careful. Take British SWP, which claims in a casual mood that “at least in Latin America, China has started to dispute them (i.e., US’s spheres of influence)”. Others, instead, like Workers Power, Socialist Fight and the rest of the ‘left wings’ of the ‘anti–capitalists’ parties of the US/UK, are claiming openly and shamelessly that China has irrupted into the world economy just as Germany did in 1914: disputing the world to England, or as USA did in the second world war taking the entire world for itself.
But according to all these revisionist chatterboxes, China would do it peacefully. China, these quack doctors say, would be taking peacefully for itself all the production branches of the world economy and all the spheres of influence. “What about Japan, France and Germany? Those are second–class imperialisms.” As apocalyptical professors, pointing to the audience with their admonishing forefingers, they have already sentenced that a new imperialism has occupied the leading role in all the inter imperialist disputes all around the world and that it is responsible for sinking the working class wages in the imperialist centers –especially USA–, as well as for their job losses.
We are facing a new revisionism akin to that which in 2003/2005 pre–announced a multipolar world with ‘an expansionist cycle that would last 50 years’. It is a Kautskyist revisionism that holds that a new or renovated imperialist power can emerge without wars, a vision of the world that revolutionary Marxism fought and defeated both in the theoretical and programmatic stances as early as 1916. Lenin said “By means of this suave lie (that England’s colonial monopoly had already been destroyed, so wars had become unnecessary, Ed. Note), Kautsky smuggles in the bourgeois–pacifist and opportunist–philistine idea that “there is nothing to fight about”. On the contrary, not only have the capitalists something to fight about now, but they cannot help fighting if they want to preserve capitalism...” (V.I.Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism –October 1916 – Collected Works, Volume 23).
But almost a century after these words were written the neo–Kautskyists have the insolence of painting the world imperialist system as a club of gentlemen who share amiably the world and their business as philanthropists managing charity entities. They try to sell an anti–Marxist, rottenly pacifist vision that poisons the class consciousness of the workers, and justifies the backwardness of the Chinese nation and the worse plundering it has ever suffered in the hands of the HSBC, USA, and even Japan and the EU.
This new revisionism, as such, has penetrated and continues penetrating the international Marxist movement, especially in the Anglo–Saxon powers. In those countries finance capital needs to create and re–create a ‘demon’ called ‘Chinese imperialism’ in order to make the working class join the imperialist bourgeoisie of London and Wall Street in their new military adventures around the world, at the same time they divert the hate of the masses from their own governments, i.e. Obama and Brown, towards the ‘Chinese demon’.
Within the FLTI, as we have stated previously, a small minority has emerged in the groups which were influenced by the Anglo–Saxon left from which they came from, before merging with us, such as Workers Power or the LCRI of England.
We have already seen this minority leaping from here to there like grasshoppers, staging a Copernican evolution in their positions; they change these positions without confessing that they are amending and changing them, with a petty bourgeois irresponsible method, lacking seriousness and openly seeding confusion. They use a typical Mandelite method of discussion. And please don’t accuse us of “abuse” for the adjectives we are forced to apply: we are tempted to say: “Let the minority reach and agreement with itself, discussing within it its own documents”.
 These overt contradictions, appropriate to chatterboxes that do not establish a clear subject of discussion about any worker could pronounce his/her opinion, are called by them... “dialectics”.
In the July congress they affirmed that the discussion on China was solely a theoretical discussion about whether China could get to become an imperialist power. In November they affirmed in a long document that China was already an imperialist country though it still kept strong features of a semi colony, and so if US was to invade it or attack its territory, they would defend it. Then –as is the habit of every revisionist that revises the program and the Marxist Theory trying at the same time that the revolutionaries and the class conscious workers do not discover their tricks– they began to hold a new position in the discussions regarding Africa, Bolivia and Honduras: according to them, China had already begun to dispute against the USA all its spheres of influence, in short, the entire world. And now, while the mechanical shovels were burying 350,000 corpses in Haiti (and a shameless silence came from USA) they went out to foretell the imminent inter imperialist war between US and China, proclaiming their defeatist policy for both sides, under the impression of the clash between Obama and Hu Jintao around Taiwan.
These are the facts. Thus are the usual deeds of the petty bourgeois prestige–seekers when a worker tells them: “you are wrong on this point”. They answer: “but here we have said another thing, and there, still another one”. Because they are everything for everybody, they offer all kinds of merchandise, as in a peddler’s showcase. But all their arguments and positions aim to confound the workers and revise Marxism.
Many workers have asked us the reason why we devote so long and detailed a document, which means hours and days of our time, to such a discussion with people that has proved to have so little seriousness. Now, we want to tell the truth to the advanced workers of the world: revisionism covers with its sophistry the programs and the strategies of reformism aimed at strangling the proletarian combats. Revisionism prepares the cadres and the parties that are needed to betray the proletariat.
Because of the delay in the proletarian revolution as a consequence of the betrayal of the proletarian leaderships, today the times do not get us nearer the inter imperialist war (at least for  now) but to some moments in which there will be defined what imperialist powers complete the re–colonization of the former worker states and which are the kind of double chains that are used to submit those countries and their working class, perhaps the most exploited in the world together with those from Africa, Middle East and Latin America.
What lies behind this struggle against revisionism and the chatterboxes who serve their own imperialism? That they, by means of their revisionism are preparing the biggest defeats in the physical combats, hand to hand, of the international proletariat against its class enemy, in the same fashion that social democracy did before 1914 against Marxism; or in the same way that Stalinism, with its pseudo–theory of “socialist in one single country” worked to expand its policy of popular fronts and strangle the French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. revolutions. We affirm that new wars of occupation are in the works that will overshadow those in Iraq and Afghanistan, making any pacifist to blush. Russia and China are in the sight of the US, European and the rest of the world imperialists. The capitalist parasites are waiting for the counterrevolutionary governments and regimes to finish all the dirty work of smashing the proletariat and submitting the oppressed nations, so then they can come and get the entire booty without sharing it with anybody.
The same is true with the counterrevolutionary pacts and the perfidious policy of the popular fronts. They throw water to put out the fire of the Bolivarian Revolution, of the combats of the Palestinian and Centre American masses, of the Iraqi and Afghan resistance, in order that imperialism can come later to drive in its counterrevolutionary claws without being molested.
The parties and cadres that betrayed those combats in the name of the working class were formed by the revisionists of ’89, by those that said that in 2003 a period of capitalist expansion of 50 years was soon to open, and that “it was necessary to produce because capitalism was going to share the resulting wealth later on”.
All of them are already grouped, as stretched lemons, in the Fifth International. Now the booby traps come for us, for the irreconcilable Trotskyists, so that we kneel before the Obama-maniacs and their next counterrevolutionary offensives. We are afraid that they will not be able to count on our good will, because it is and shall always be to the exclusive service of the historic interests of the international proletariat.
Our minority is constituted by a current together which we have been combating for years, as is the CWG of New Zealand, and by the HWRS who we have recently get to know. Both of those currents come from Cliffism or its successive splits, as Workers Power in England, etc.
Many times the insufficient delimitation of the Marxists with the currents from which they come from, when the pressures of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy on the world proletariat worsen, takes them back to their starting point. This won’t be the first or the last time.
So, inside our FLTI, a minority has emerged. The only militant task they had in the last six months was the elaboration of their documents on ‘imperialist China’. These documents have been translated into Spanish and published in English and Spanish for the whole FLTI in due time.
Soon they will be put into debate before the eyes of all the international proletariat, since the Chinese question has become a critical programmatic question for their international combat, and this takes them inevitably, to disregard all the foundational documents of our fraction. Thus they have become a liquidationist current inside the FLTI and, now in the field of the Anti–Marxist revisionism, they have gone to the side of the ‘anti–capitalist’ Anglo–Saxon left, as we will demonstrate in this document.
The “anti–capitalist” currents in France and Germany do not hold the pseudo–theory of an imperialist China, because China is not the “monster” that those imperialist powers need today as a subterfuge to carry their own proletariats to join them in further offensives.
These imperialist powers, for now, are concentrating in Eastern Europe and Latin America, which are the zones they dispute to USA, and also certain parts of Asia such as India, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc. They also focus their strengths in keeping their spheres of influence in Africa, where, as in Latin America, USA has returned to take back it considers of its property, using very well its front man (Hu Jintao), a local manager who for now keeps US business in Asia–Pacific.
The European imperialist powers are aware of the limitations they have in the Pacific against the USA. They know very well that in 1989 with the capitalist restoration in the former deformed and degenerate workers states like Russia and China the counterrevolutionary character of 2WW was defined in favor of the ‘democratic allies’ front, i.e. Roosevelt and Churchill.
That is to say, US imperialism and its partner, British imperialism, won Russia and China as they had planned with the double character of the Second World War where it was defined which imperialism would remain as the dominant (USA), which imperialism was defeated and would remain as vassal (Germany and Japan) and which imperialists would remain as secondary powers, like France and other minor European powers.
The front of the “allies” of the 2WW knows perfectly well what was discussed at the conferences of Teheran (1943) and in Yalta (1944) about who dominated the Pacific and which was the role played by Russia and China for those that won the war. Japan knows this very well, and it still bleeds of its wounds caused by 2 atomic bombs, for daring to dispute the Pacific to US, one of the richest area of the planet and a the vital passage for USA.
The proletarian revolution at the immediate end of the war, together with the heroism of the soviet masses, prevented USA and Stalin from creating the conditions of a Perestroika and Glasnost, i.e. the capitalist restoration, as well as the settling of the capitalist restoration by the Nazi invasion to the USSR. Stalinism saved imperialist Europe from the proletarian revolution, but it could not prevent the expropriation of the bourgeoisie in one third of the planet, as it was forced to do with the Chinese revolution, later in Vietnam, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.
After the defeat of the world revolutionary uprising of 1968/74 and after giving the Stalinist bureaucracy the role of guaranteeing the strangling of the world revolution all over the planet, imperialism returned to those states with its restorationist offensive, making sure that the Stalinist bureaucracy become a direct agent of imperialism and move in the ‘80s to be part of the camp of the capitalist restoration, as the IV International had predicted.
That is why we insist in that there are de ANGLO–SAXON left currents and also those in Japan, that is the worker aristocracies and bureaucracies of that bloc of imperialist powers which stir up their own proletariats with the ghost of the “Chinese monster”.
For the European powers the way out of the crisis will be determined by the definition of which of them remain standing up and which sink in the troubled waters, and become as subsidiaries of those that win the competition.
As a consequence, Germany has closed on itself and said “each one saves itself as it can” and the country that was yesterday Maastricht master has left today to their fate all its European partners, for them to sink as much as possible in their debts –Greece, Spain, Turkey, Italy, and also France (today allied to US through a conjunctural pact). A proof of that is the refusal from the European Central Bank to rescue broke Greece, leaving it as a banana republic in the hands of the IMF.
Again, this crisis poises that the solution for Germany will come only if it gets to control Europe. That is why France is taking sides very seriously with US, because Germany will emerge as the victor form the crisis if it turns to be the first European power from Portugal to the Russian steppes; from there and without junior partners it will dispute the control of the spheres of influence in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
France has puts its spheres of influence under agreements with US imperialism to stabilize the world, as we have seen in Honduras, in Bolivia and the Middle East with the Iranian Ayatollahs, after the crisis of Bush government and the burst of the world economic crisis.
But for US its domestic market is the whole planet. And while it leaves Europe alone to get in shambles, thoroughly indebted, US has put its feet on the Pacific and Africa, and has returned with a counterrevolutionary offensive –with fascist putsches as in Bolivia, coups as in Honduras or invading as in Haiti– to recover Latin America as its “backyard”. Meanwhile it props up its offensives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, this last one a true beachhead with a perfect placement from which to watch over the whole of Asia, “the old Silk Road”, together with its military bases in Hong–Kong and Taiwan, and the carrier it has placed in Okinawa, Japan.
There they are, leaning out of the left pockets of the tailcoats of Obama and the British Queen, all the currents of the UK–US left, preparing to justify the counter-revolutionary offensive of the “democratic” imperialists with murderous Obama at their head.

As we have said, in 1989, the definite outcome of the Second World War was defined with the capitalist restoration in the former workers states, which acted as a fresh blood injection to revive the stinky dying body of world capitalism.
This meant an enormous counterrevolutionary victory for the capitalist world economy, which let Imperialism outlive itself –even spending far above the values created–. This situation has caused a world economic crisis even bigger than the crisis in the 1930s.
Whoever does not take this as a starting point to approach the discussion on the Chinese question, that is, whoever does not start from the actual historic developments of the last few decades and the world economic crisis; from the war, the revolution and the counterrevolution; and using as a tool the Marxist theory, which states the laws that rule in the historical process, is a vulgar impressionist, i.e. a pragmatic liquidator of Marxism and its apothegm that there is only one single world economy and that the epoch of national programs is long overdue.
The revisionism in his/her empirical idealistic method cannot but fabricate national socialist pseudo theories. This could not be otherwise.
As all the currents who have already decreed that China is an imperialist country, the minority of the FLTI, affirms this has happened because of the national contradictions and national particularities of the capitalist restoration process given in China. They said “Chinese imperialism” came up as an exception because of national particularities. This is the theory of national–socialism, since for us Marxists what defines the national processes are not their national particularities but the world politics, world economy and the world wide class struggle, to whom the national particularities are subjected. (cf. Trotsky’s criticism of the draft program for the 5th Congress of the Comintern, in The Third International after Lenin, Alma–Ata, 1928).
That’s why in their document of open rupture with the FLTI and Trotskyism they affirm as follows:
“In other words China has turned the crisis of US and EU finance capital and the global recession into an opportunity to export its own finance capital and to establish imperialist spheres of influence. As a result, China is now entering directly into competition with the existing imperialist powers as an emerging imperialist in particular posing a major challenge to the US, the UK, Germany and France and Japan. What accounts for this amazing performance when the rest of the imperialist states are in recession or stagnating?
“The answer can be found by going back to the salient point that the secret of China’s “success” rests in its highly centralized state banks and SOEs  (State owned Enterprises) which can act to take advantage of the global recession.  And while we argue that China is no longer a DWS we say its ‘advantage’ is a legacy of China’s history as a deformed workers’ state (DWS). In other words if China had not been a DWS it could never have become a dynamic capitalist country. It would have been fated to be divided and ruled by imperialism from the early 20th century to the early 21st century. Like all other semi–colonies, China would never have been in the position to accumulate sufficient capital to force its ruling class to export surplus finance capital and emerge as a new imperialist power.” (our bold)
(...)
 “To characterize China today as imperialist appears to contradict the logic of Lenin’s theory of imperialism which states that no colony or semi–colony can make a national democratic revolution and emerge as a new imperialist power. However, if it can be proved that China did make its national revolution and win independence as a DWS and that the restoration of capitalism did not cause it to lose that independence then there is no contradiction with Lenin’s theory. We would find that the essence of his theory explains the apparent anomaly that a former workers state can do what is otherwise impossible – become a new imperialist power.”
Let’s begin from the beginning. First of all, China did lose its independence with the fall of the worker state. With the Nixon–Deng Xiao Ping pact in ’75 it lost its independence. It handed over to the US the entire Chinese southeast and its slave labor for the imperialist powers to produce there in those “free zones”.
China lost its independence, “freed” its ex–import trade from the state control. It does not any more take sovereign decisions about what it exports or what it imports. It lost the control of the state banks in the hands of the imperialist banks.
China lost its independence. With its portion of the massive plus value extracted from its slave workers it is forced to buy US treasuries and to sell to the MNCs located in its territories raw materials at a subsidized, cheap price.
China did lose its independence. What these comrades say is a shame and a barefaced lie against the Chinese proletarians and exploited people.
The outstanding leaders of our minority speak about a “dynamic Marxism” that “interprets the new events”. This is for them “dialectics”; we think that they are in an open rupture with scientific socialism, with regards to the proletarian science for the proletarian revolution.
According to these people, “dynamics” is a catchword to disguise their empiricism and pragmatism, because to explain the new developments it is not necessary to throw to the trash bin the entire Marxist science, that is, its theory. It is licit to enrich or correct the Marxist theory, but starting from its own method, from its own laws of dialectical materialism and historic materialism, from the theory–program of permanent revolution, from the law of the uneven and combined development, from the laws that rule the capitalist economy, and from the law of the fundamental historic causality that explains all the anomalies and exceptions in this historic process, namely, the crisis of the proletarian leadership.
Because, ultimately the crisis of the proletarian leadership explains the de–synchronization between the subjective and the objective factors of the world proletariat, including the de–synchronization within the latter.
We will go over this point later. But returning to the attitude of the comrades of the minority about the Marxist methods, they act as a physicist that discards the gravity law to explain the attraction and the movement of the planets, or like a physician that says the laws that rule the functioning of the respiratory or circulatory apparatuses in the human body do not matter, because it is necessary to start from the anomalies that have appeared in the movement or in the organism.
We are sure that these people would be expelled from Physics or Medicine for being charlatans, quack doctors, tricksters, etc.
The theory of the “national peculiarities” was utilized by Stalinism to explain the anomalies, and so it created its theory to justify “socialism in one single country”.
We have explained in another chapter how China does not emerge in the epoch of free competition capitalism during the 19th century, and therefore it was not able to occupy the place of the more advanced countries. It re–emerges amidst the rottenness of the 21st century, in the most decaying and bankrupt epoch of the world capitalist system.
We affirm that if the independence of USA was to be decreed today –which reached it at the end of the 18th century–, even with its entire potential, it could never be an imperialist country. England would not have allowed it, messrs. Reformists. Germany and Franc would not have allowed it either. Not to speak of Spain and Portugal.
These ignoramuses that liquidate the law of the uneven and combined development, of the reformist epoch and of the revolutionary epoch, not even get to realize why, for example, countries as those in Latin America, that during the 19th century had began their democratic revolutions, could not be advanced capitalist countries as USA. It was because in the last days of the 19th century powerful England was beginning to accumulate its finance capital and it was not going to allow them to leave behind their backwardness.
They do not explain why countries that were left much more behind as those of Africa, that achieved their “independence” in the aftermath of the 2WW, today are retrogressing to be again mere colonies in the hands of the imperialist dominance. That means imperialism is reaction all along the line.
It was the “free competition” of the reformist epoch in the 19th century of organic accumulation of capital which allowed advanced capitalist countries to emerge and that the backward ones were subsumed to that mode of production in the world economy with what Marx called “the redemption role of capital”.
But in this imperialist epoch, where entire production branches and spheres of influence are controlled by imperialist gangs, and there exist  no more possibilities for the emergence of other countries of the likes of the US or  for democratic revolutions. The historic prognosis is either ,socialism or barbarism, communism or fascism.
Our minority insists in a crazy way: “nobody has affirmed that an imperialist power cannot emerge from a worker state”. Either socialism or barbarism, gentlemen. And that is what exists in China, a leap forward towards barbarism with the capitalist restoration, as it happened in all the former worker states.
Or are you going to defend the “market socialism” of the counterrevolutionary Chinese Mandarins, that regime of counterrevolutionary terror that imposed in China a very small pole or sector with the most advanced world productive forces, and in the rest, a 80% of China and its labor force the worse labor conditions akin to those that Hitler imposed in the Warsaw ghetto?
That was the method of “national peculiarities” defended by Stalinism, which held that the Russian Revolution had followed in the configuration of its “socialist market”, the routes of the old czarist market. And therefore it could, as a backward imperialist power where the socialist revolution had reached victory, not only reach but also surpass the most advanced imperialist countries and conquer socialism in one single country.
Against this pseudo theory and its method the Bolsheviks–Trotskyists rose and its work “The Third International After Lenin” affirms in its chapter The Program of the International Revolution or a Program of Socialism in One Country?:
“In our epoch, which is the epoch of imperialism, i.e., of world economy and world politics under the hegemony of finance capital, NOT A SINGLE COMMUNIST PARTY CAN ESTABLISH ITS PROGRAM BY PROCEEDING SOLELY OR MAINLY FROM CONDITIONS AND TENDENCIES OF DEVELOPMENTS IN ITS OWN COUNTRY. This also holds entirely for the party that wields the state power within the boundaries of the U.S.S.R.” (our emphasis) That is why a truly communist international program “is in no case the sum total of national programs or an amalgam of their common features.
 “On August 4, 1914, the death knell sounded for national programs for all time (...)
 “Linking up countries and continents that stand on different levels of development into a system of mutual dependence and antagonism, leveling out the various stages of their development and at the same time immediately enhancing the differences between them, and ruthlessly counterposing one country to another, world economy has become a mighty reality which holds sway over the economic life of individual countries and continents.” (L. Trotsky– The Third International After Lenin –The Draft Program of the Communist International: ( A Criticism of Fundamentals)
For our minority the definition of the character of China, as we will explain below, starts from the Chinese “exceptionality” or “national peculiarities” which are given by a miraculous combination between the emergence of a new bourgeoisie born from the belly of Stalinism and the state industries that remain from the times of the former worker state, which allowed China to accumulate enough capital and emerge as a new imperialist power.
That is, thanks to its “national peculiarities” –in a world that has been completely conquered and partitioned among the different powers, with its productive branches completely defined by imperialism at a world level– 1,6 billion of Chinese, would have entered the planet in a stealthy way, “tiptoeing” so to say, and taken it for themselves without anyone taking notice.
This is the same method and the same pseudo–theory of the “national peculiarities” that Stalinism and all the traitors used to submit the proletariat to their bourgeoisies and to strangle the world revolution, this time to define the imperialist character of China.
 We ask our readers to please read again the quotation of the works of this tumor that has emerged in the FLTI, of a minority that shows its subservience to the lefts of the Obamamania that proclaims a “dynamic Marxism” and is merrily removing the dust from old theories of the Stalinist rubbish that History has long ago de-legitimized.
You will find that the essence of their theory “explains”
“the apparent anomaly that a former workers state can do what is otherwise impossible – become a new imperialist power”.
We warn these comrades: UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU DO NOT STOP AND RETHINK YOUR POSITION, THAT WILL LEAD YOU VERY FAR IN THE WAY OF REVISIONISM AND CAUSE YOU TO BETRAY THE WORLD PROLETARIAT.
Advanced workers and revolutionaries: read carefully that quotation. The minority is saying that there was no bourgeois counterrevolution which restored capitalism liquidating all the historical gains of the revolution by annulling the nationalization of the foreign commerce, imposing the privatization of the profitable branches of production and handing them out to world imperialism, and which sent millions of landless peasants into starvation and unemployment, or to slave–like job conditions, which put China in the 130th place in countries by its GDP per inhabitant.
But let the reader read very carefully. The minority is saying that the restoration process, which is the result of the pact between Nixon and Deng Xiao Ping, which ended the state property of the land and the banks, and which put the Chinese workers to work with less than 30 dollar monthly wage, is not a counterrevolution but that the capitalist restoration kept the gains of the former workers state and moreover, it rose them so much that China competes with USA for the world.
The minority does not care about the worker who works in his/her underwear, on his/her bare feet, chained up to the machines, as 100 million of them do in the South East of China. They do not think about the peasants either, who were removed from their land, as those millions who every year stage violent revolts for bread. They do not think about the slaughter in Tiananmen Square, let alone the 4 million workers who were chased up to the borders of the country by the restorationist army.
The minority is saying that the state companies (who have less labor productivity than the Indian, Bolivian, Argentinean ones and even than those of Timbuktu as regards the extraction of minerals) have made China become “imperialist”!
They are saying that the victorious bourgeois restorationist counterrevolution as held and kept the gains of the 1949 revolution and taken them as banners up to the end to conquer the world, such as capitalism in the nineteenth century conquered other backward civilizations in the planet and took them to progress thanks to the redeeming role of the capital.
The minority ends up “flourishing” the Wall Street counterrevolutionary gangs that plunder the whole planet.
The only anomaly that exists is that a minority of a revolutionary organization, such as the FLTI, which has declared itself a public faction “in defence of Trotskyism”, contradicts the theory and the program of the permanent revolution, of the uneven and combined development and of all the Marxist science. And we are not just making this up, since they previously claim: “China has turned the crisis of US and EU finance capital and the global recession into an opportunity to export its own finance capital and to establish imperialist spheres of influence.” (...) “The secret of China’s “success” rests in its highly centralized state banks and SOEs which can act to take advantage of the global recession”. (SOE: State Owned Enterprise. TN). So later on they say: “its ‘advantage’ is a legacy of China’s history as a deformed workers’ state”.
Comrades of the minority, you must stop at some point, since this actually means screaming: Long live Gorbachev! Long live Yeltsin! Long live the slaughterers and the murderers of the Chinese bureaucracy! Long live the cliques of Stalin–Cain and from all the Russian restorationist bureaucracy! They have even known how to keep in the history the prospect of continuing Bukharin’s position, that is uniting the state economy, but going further away than Bukharin, with the capitalist companies and marching to dominate the world in the world capitalist economic crisis.
Comrades of the minority: Do you realize that this is what your affirmation means?
State Banks? Totally inexact! They are fully controlled by the imperialist Banks. The SOEs are in bankruptcy, as well as the state banks, with a generalized bankruptcy in 2001 for subsidizing the loss–ridden SOEs, which subsidized the imperialist companies and banks which plunder China with super profits under the command of their managers, foremen, uncle Tom, with an army of 4 million mercenaries of the imperialist banks to subjugate China as a big maquila for the world market. Its foreman, its Uncle Tom Hu Jintao, can’t even think about touching a single extra penny of the surplus value extracted to the workers movement. If so, its head would roll down.
Stop at one point, comrades of the minority! 600,000 imperialist factories are plundering China. 1 trillion dollars of the Chinese treasure is there to support the annual losses of the imperialist powers.
 As we will see further on, the Chinese State guarantees a consumption cycle for such transnationals to liquefy their crisis by selling 12 million cars, 7 and a half million computers, so that the own Chinese state, servant as well as buyer, buys soybeans, comestible oil, minerals and oil from the transnationals in the semi colonial world at their highest price in 100 years.
Comrades from the minority, by characterizing China as ‘imperialist’ you are not only contradicting the logic of the Leninist theory, but you are perverting it.
Stop. If you continue down this road, you’ll end up as all the British left, starting with their chiefs of the British SWP and Workers Power, servants of the HSBC and who cover up the counterrevolutionaries: Hu Jintao, Yeltsin and the genocides as Putin.
In this imperialist epoch, the rentier, the parasite, lives a separate life from the management of capital. He/she reduces him/herself to the act of clipping coupons, not of administering them.
As all the statistics the minority has in their hands, which were contributed by the comrades in South Africa, Bolivia and Chile, the tags that read “Made in China” cover the imperialist MNCS that since the Nixon–Den Xiao Ping pact of the ’75, are obliged to put as front men the children of the Chinese bureaucrats. In that way the Maoist bureaucracy assured for itself the right to legate and to the private property of the means of production after the capitalist restoration had given a tremendous leap forward after the Tiananmen massacre.
“Made in China”, Messrs. Servants of the HSBC is the signature to the right to legate with which the finance capital guaranteed the Stalinist–Maoist rubbish to become a propertied class. Any enterprise that is located in China has to be registered under the name of a child of a former CCP bureaucrat. And what is the problem for the finance capital that this appears under the “made in China” tag if that allows them to hide in a better way their super profits to the eyes of the proletarians that it exploits and deprives?
To this point in the debate we can scarcely repress ourselves from shouting to you and to the entire left that serves the HSBC and JP Morgan: “You are a bunch of shameless coverers of the right to legate thanks to which the Chinese Stalinist rubbish became in a propertied class, under the “Made in China” tag for exporting to the world economy!” “Made in China” is also the way to cover the commercial secrecy with which the exploiters of the Chinese nation and the imperialist powers hide their super profits and the collection of their royalties and patents (copyrights).
So, we Trotskyists will raise as a fundamental demand, against those revisionists to the service of the HSBC and JP Morgan, the war cry: Out with the commercial secrecy of the Chinese firms! To expose the new proprietors behind those Chinese enterprises, the children of the old CCP bureaucrats –who have to be expropriated anew–, who are under the mandate of the directory boards of the MNCs that plunder the Chinese nation, that carry their trillion dollars to cover the deficits of their imperialist states, stealing now the land and extracting until the last drop of juice from the muscles and nerves of the Chinese proletariat!
The struggle for the restoration of the proletarian dictatorship under revolutionary forms will have to settle accounts with these new renegades of Trotskyism that want to throw sand to the eyes of the Chinese workers in order that they cannot distinguish clearly their enemy.
Yes, that is the role of revisionism. But unmasking it is precisely the role of Bolshevism.

Again on the theoretical matrix of revisionism: the Stalinist pseudo–theory of “socialism in a single country”.

The deep political and programmatic differences have their roots in a deep theoretical difference: the revisionists –no matter what they proclaim about that question– believe in the development of the productive forces within the national borders in one single country. Since August 4th 1914, nationalism and internationalism are incompatible.
In 1923–1924 a fight between militant internationalism and “socialism in one country” started in the Third International. Stalin affirmed that the productive forces inside the USSR were enough to reach socialism inside the national borders of the Soviet Union, even surpassing the most advanced imperialist countries. The Stalinists stated that the productive forces were national, that they were not linked to the world economy. This is how the bureaucracy of the workers state recruited its men to act as puppets and fabricate and divulge a “theory” according to what it wished and needed, revising Marx and Lenin and breaking with all the programs and resolutions of the first four congresses of the Third International.
That method and that pseudo–theory were based on the “national peculiarities” in the exclusive potential of a country isolated from the world politics and economy. We are sorry to inform you that perhaps such a country could exist in the Moon or Mars, but not in our Earth. That is what we Trotskyists affirm.
Effectively, Stalin was who based his “theory” in the uneven character of the development of the different countries to support the idea that as a consequence of that “Russian inequality” this country could reach socialism and achieve or even surpass the level of Germany.
Today, “imperialist China” is based on the same “pseudo–theory of the peculiar evolution of the Chinese national conditions. As if this country could be able to evolve with an uneven development without combining with world politics and economy, which is what defines over the peculiarity.
This people is not innovating anything, they are not creating anything new; they are not contributing with anything. They have only borrowed Stalinist “theory” to justify their capitulation to Obama.
Trotsky, when criticizing the draft program written by Bukharin and Stalin for the sixth congress of the Third International defined the incompatibility of “socialism in one country” with Marx and Lenin’s program and legacy as follows:
“That the international revolution of the proletariat cannot be a simultaneous act, of this there can of course be no dispute at all among grown–up people after the experience of the October Revolution, achieved by the proletariat of a backward country under pressure of historical necessity, without waiting in the least for the proletariat of the advanced countries ‘to even out the front.’ Within these limits, the reference to the law of uneven development is absolutely correct and quite in place. But it is entirely otherwise with the second half of the conclusion – namely, the hollow assertion that the victory of socialism is possible ‘in one isolated capitalist country.’ To prove its point the draft program simply says: ‘Hence it follows ...’ One gets the impression that this follows from the law of uneven development. But this does not follow at all. ‘Hence follows’ something quite the contrary. If the historical process were such that some countries developed not only unevenly but even independently of each other, isolated from each other, then from the law of uneven development would indubitably follow the possibility of building socialism in one capitalist country – at first in the most advanced country and then, as they mature, in the more backward ones. Such was the customary and, so to speak, average idea of the transition to socialism within the ranks of the pre–war social democracy. This is precisely the idea that formed the theoretical basis of social–patriotism. (...)
“The theoretical error of the draft lies in the fact that it seeks to deduce from the law of uneven development something which the law does not and cannot imply. Uneven or sporadic development of various countries acts constantly to upset but in no case to eliminate the growing economic bonds and interdependence between those countries which the very next day, after four years of hellish slaughter, were compelled to exchange coal, bread, oil, powder, and suspenders with each other. On this point, the draft posits the question as if historical development proceeds only on the basis of sporadic leaps, while the economic basis which gives rise to these leaps, and upon which they occur, is either left entirely out of sight by the authors of the draft, or is forcibly eliminated by them. This they do with the sole object of defending the indefensible theory of socialism in one country.” (Trotsky, “Critique to the program of the CI”, chapter. 1, 1928, our bolds).
This is how the laws of the world economy act in the historical period of 1989 in China, when capitalism was restored. The international finance capital conquered new markets such as Russia, China and the former workers states of Eastern Europe, and put them to produce for its sake. Thanks to them and thanks to the wars, it managed to come out of the 1997/2001 crises and to create a new expansion cycle that fell apart in 2007.
Finance capital took the most advanced technology to China in some branches of production, it put them to work and with that they recovered their rate of profits.
The veins of Putin’s Russia are opened to supply with gas and oil imperialist Europe. Meanwhile, the former republics oppressed by Czarism, who were later controlled by Stalinism, have been shared among the imperialist powers.
In the expansion cycle 2003–2007, China, as a transitory capitalist country, was a huge component since it provided slave labour force, letting the world labour force value to go down all over the world, and made it easier for the imperialist companies the process of re–localization of their facilities in the world market.
Today, the devaluation of the dollar pushes even more the process to consolidate China as a “consumer”, with a reduced but important consumer market (200 million able customers), surrounded by an ocean of 1,200 million starving and dispossessed exploited people, a truly significant industrial army of reserve for the world capitalist market.
The current linking of China to the world division of labor as a transitory capitalist state generates a commercial minor capital used to cover the shortages of the international finance capital. So finance capitals plunder China and even make it pay for their shortages and bankruptcy. Meanwhile, that creates the conditions for future crisis, cracks and for a future extreme colonization and re colonization of those oppressed people, as it is already happening all over the colonial and semi colonial world, if the working class and the revolution do not stop this from happening.
There is no such a thing as imperialism in one single country or some state capitalism flexibility capable of developing the national productive forces. There are no state productive forces that can compete with THE MONOPOLY, THE TRUST, and THE CARTEL WHICH ARE INTERNATIONAL AND CONTROL THE BRANCHES OF PRODUCTION OF ALL THE WORLD ECONOMY INTERNATIONALLY.
OUT with the theory of “Socialism in one country”! OUT with the national capitalism theory!
In defence of historical materialism! In defense of the theory–program of the permanent revolution and the theoretical and programmatic legacy of the Fourth International!

We are facing a decrepit and senile neo–Cliffism post 1989. The Cliffites, heirs in the post war period of currents as that of Burnham and Shachtman’s, anti–defensist with respect to the USSR and the deformed workers states, vowed on this apologia of ‘state capitalism’.
Because this is what the minority of the FLTI states when it says: “its highly centralized state banks and SOEs which can act to take advantage of the global recession”
As we’ll see later, the Chinese Banks went bankrupt in 2001 and they were entirely occupied by the imperialist Banks and today the SOE have a productivity of labour even lower than that they had when China or the USSR were deformed or degenerated workers states.
The Cliffites, that leftist support of the treacherous England Labour Party and the bureaucrats of the TUC, affirmed that the advantages of “state capitalism” and its state productive forces made Moscow capable –in the post war period– of disputing the world economy to USA, even the space race. The minority, except for its anti–defensism, is just another way of kneeling down, this time not before “socialism in one country” but before “state economies in one country”.
Without knowing it (or perhaps well aware) the theoreticians of the Chinese “exceptionality” are no more than the continuators of the Cliffite pseudo–theory of “state capitalism”. They are stepping over the same steps of a kin of Trotskyist renegades, who are the continuators of Burnham and Shachtman and servants to the TUC and of “Her Majesty” the Queen; a current that is social–imperialist to the marrow, an enemy of the struggle for a unified and independent Ireland, freed from the yoke of the British crown.
This is the left of “Her Majesty” and of the British TUC bureaucracy that, through their international satellites, submitted the proletarians to the “democratic fronts” of the national bourgeoisies that supported the interests of Great Britain and her dominions. In that way they acted in Zimbabwe, submitting the ISOZ to Mugabe’s popular front, which pledged fidelity to the English properties and to the British Queen. And that is what they are doing now with the US ISO, which has just voted to build a propaganda group for two years to support Obama the new president.
They are who during the Yalta period cried “Neither Washington nor Moscow”, while the Citibank, JP Morgan and the HSBC were buying off the entire Stalinist bureaucracy, from German Hönnecker to Russian Gorbachov, and Yeltsin later on, plaguing with heavy external debts the former worker states of the East European block as if they were semi colonial banana republics, as it happened to Poland, Hungary and the then Czechoslovakia, which exhibited terrible external debts akin to those of the Latin America in the ‘80s. Meanwhile, between ’93 and ’98, the imperialist banks, through Yeltsin and the “new bourgeoisie”, after devaluating the rubble, stole in big boxes, suitcases, by plane and whichever means they had at hand, 200 billion dollars which are conveniently kept in certain London bank cellars.
“Neither Washington nor Moscow” they shouted, while the City in London, the subsidiary of US Citibank took the entire East European Block and the USSR.
And now their parrots and Cliffite continuators shout: “Neither Washington nor Beijing”, while New Zealand sends troops to massacre the Afghans under the orders of Obama, and they sut up their mouths; while in Guantanamo there are still imprisoned the fighters of Mazar–i–Shariff, and they shut up their mouths; while Mumia is ever near the end of the death row, under the orders of murderous Obama, and they write that racist judges are who want to execute him; while imperialist troops invade –once more– Haiti and they keep absolutely mute, because “the peril rests in Beijing”!
Thus with one hand they cover the back of the stranglers and pilferers of the Chinese nation, while with the other, they put themselves under the orders of the World Social Forum to build with all the renegades and traitors the Fifth International to gather together and centralize all the saviors of capitalism in its death agony, from which capitalism would be able to be saved if once again JP Morgan, Citibank and the rest of the imperialist parasites of the finance capital succeed in their re–colonization of Russia and China.
And they cannot say we are not speaking about what they have written, because they hold that with the state–ization of the economy and of entire productive branches, without seizing the power, without destroying the power of the bourgeoisie and private property, without nationalizing the foreign exchange, without extending the world revolution, backward countries as China after the ’89 “can reach the most advanced imperialism and dispute it the world”. Please, gentlemen, be courageous and dare to confess your most intimate feelings: you think the theory of permanent revolution has passed away, is obsolete! For the minority of the FLTI, backward countries, with nationalized enterprises and imperialist corporations that provide them with state–of–the art technology are able to leave behind their backwardness, dispute the dominance of the world hand to hand with the imperialist powers, resolve the problem of national oppression and the land question, the two democratic–revolutionary tasks that both the colonial and semi colonial countries cannot resolve unless they attain the victory of the proletarian revolution.
Trotsky, in “The Revolution Betrayed” has already demolished the Cliffite theory of “state capitalism” and got rid in advance of the fools that support it today. In chapter IX. “Social relations in the social Union”, point 1. “State Capitalism?”” of that masterpiece about the Russian question, that is a complete handbook against Cliffism, he says: “We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it “state capitalism.” This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means.”
And continues:
“The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes–that is, competition among different capitals—but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist—the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution.
“During the war, and especially during the experiments in fascist economy, the term “state capitalism” has oftenest been understood to mean a system of state interference and regulation. The French employ a much more suitable term for this state-ism. There are undoubtedly points of contact between state capitalism and “state–ism”, but taken as systems they are opposite rather than identical. State capitalism means the substitution of state property for private property, and for that very reason remains partial in character. State–ism, no matter where in Italy, Mussolini, in Germany, Hitler, in America, Roosevelt, or in France, Leon Blum—means state intervention on the basis of private property, and with the goal of preserving it. Whatever be the programs of the government, state-ism inevitably leads to a transfer of the damages of the decaying system from strong shoulders to weak. It “rescues” the small proprietor from complete ruin only to the extent that his existence is necessary for the preservation of big property. The planned measures of state-ism are dictated not by the demands of a development of the productive forces, but by a concern for the preservation of private property at the expense of the productive forces, which are in revolt against it. State–ism means applying brakes to the development of technique, supporting unviable enterprises, perpetuating parasitic social strata. In a word, state–ism is completely reactionary in character.”
And he ends with an opposite thesis to that of the minority. While the latter says that the state–ization is regressive in the hands of the bureaucracy and progressive in the hands of the bourgeoisie, Trotsky hold a position that contradicts that absolutely.
“The first concentration of the means of production in the hands of the state to occur in history was achieved by the proletariat with the method of social revolution, and not by capitalists with the method of state trustification. Our brief analysis is sufficient to show how absurd are the attempts to identify capitalist state–ism with the Soviet system. The former is reactionary, the latter progressive.”
That is why Trotsky, in this same significant work, that we subscribe wholeheartedly, concludes (same chapter, point 2,”Is the bureaucracy a ruling class?”):
“A collapse of the Soviet regime would lead inevitably to the collapse of the planned economy, and thus to the abolition of state property. The bond of compulsion between the trusts and the factories within them would fall away. The more successful enterprises would succeed in coming out on the road of independence. They might convert or they might find some themselves into stock companies, other transitional form of property— one, for example, in which the workers should participate in the profits. The collective farms would disintegrate at the same time, and far more easily. The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a catastrophic decline of industry and culture.”
So it happened in all the former worker states (either degenerated or deformed) though you, comrades of the minority, want to make believe that Beijing equals London or Washington.
This “catastrophic decline of industry and culture” of the masses, spoken about by Trotsky, can be seen now in the millions of slaves that produce in the maquilas or that were deprived of the land, relapsing in starvation and even cannibalism; while the most part of the wealth created by human labor goes to cover and finance the deficits of the imperialist parasites of Wall Street.
This is the catastrophe descended on China where capitalism has been restored; a completely different view than the “wonder” depicted by the revisionists, who one would like to send to China so they feel in their own muscles and nerves the experience of working in the concentration camps of its maquilas for 30 dollars per month, under the lashes and the guns of the Chinese military.
The super profits extracted by the finance capital, are superb enough so that some crumbs can be spared to pay all the bureaucrats that want to write pages after pages of laudation for poisoning the class–consciousness of the world proletariat.
Let’s go over our minority’s theory once more. According to it, and revising Marxism the imperialist transformation of China would have developed out of an anomaly, namely, the statized enterprises.
Now, Egyptian president Nasser state–ized the Suez Channel in Egypt in the aftermath of the 2WW; Argentinean president Peron state–ized a significant portion of the national productive branches in Argentina in the 40’s; Chavez has just nationalized the biggest Venezuelan steel enterprise (SIDOR); a great part of the Arab bourgeoisies and also the PRI (the bourgeois party that emerged from the Mexican bourgeois revolution in early 20th century) also state–ized important productive branches of their countries at some time in that same century. But no one of them turned to be imperialist.
“State capitalism” is by no means an anomaly in the world capitalist system. Even within the imperialist powers the state–ization of Big Capital and its “nationalization” is a subterfuge utilized by the bourgeois sate to bail it out from the collapse and the crisis, and then afterwards, when the peril has passed it returns it intact to the shareholders, after “healing” it with the people’s money.
In the semi–colonial world, the state–izations are simply a move in the disputes between the national bourgeoisies and the imperialists that oppress the nation, for a slice of the plus value extracted from the workers and of the (land, oil, etc.) rent (revenues). But these state–izations (as well as the disputes) are short lived and circumstantial because the national bourgeoisies always end giving up to the imperialist master for fear of the proletarian revolution, because the working class has proved to be, in taking the power, the only real national class.
Nor is an anomaly that the state–ized property is kept in that condition in the former worker states where the capitalist economy has been restored. This is the norm, because it allows an orderly capitalist restoration to be made. That is, the productive branches that are profitable go directly to the finance capital and the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the enterprises that demand too much investment or render losses, remain under control of the state so that it subsidizes them and some kind of order can be kept within economy in transition to restoration, to the service of the whole propertied class.
This is no novelty. That was discussed and voted in the foundational congress of the Fourth International in ’38, in the debate between Trotsky and Yvan Craipeau about what appearance could take the capitalist restoration in the USSR in case a Menshevik government took the power there.
And a proof of the correction of this Marxist law is that when the too greedy Yeltsinist bourgeoisie performed in Russia a wild spree of privatizations, the economy could not work any more. So Russia, in shambles from ’89 to ’98, ended devaluating the ruble, shaken by a tremendous crac, back–stepped 100 in its history regarding its indexes of mortality, morbidity, nutrition and life expectancy. And it needed a Bonapatist coup in the hands of Putin to be able to organize a serious, orderly economy, by re–state–izing oil and gas, though a 49% of all the shares of the Russian oil and gas are in the hands of German BASF.
This creeping Cliffism that has emerged in the ANGLO–SAXON left has impacted our minority that is keen to return to it as quickly as their legs allow them.
We insist: they think that they are elaborating “dialectically” in a new “Dynamic Marxism”, but the only thing they are doing is chewing up an old and dirty piece of fabric woven by the pseudo–theories of the “national peculiarities” that ended in the “theory” of “socialism in one single country” –that was put to the service of strangling the world revolution, and in that of “state capitalism” considering the USSR a capitalist country in the aftermath of the 2WW.
From that arsenal of revisionism and treason kept by the Trotskyist renegades in England, our minority extracts the worn out pieces for its patchwork of a theory in order to adapt itself to the Obamamania of US imperialism.

There is a precedent of an open revisionism that spoke about the emerging of a new imperialism in the 1980s. At the head of the revision of Marxist theory there were the Mandelites as well as the Pabloites. Under some conjunctural (temporary, TN) circumstances of the world economy, they claimed that the so called “Asian Tigers” were exporters of capital (through their Foreign Direct Investments) and competitors against USA in several branches of production such as auto industry and the metal industry, as the Chaebols in South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc.
But the golden dream of the Asian Tigers did not last for long. Mandelites are still picking up the little pieces of their teeth broken due to such an Anti–Marxist brutality.
Japan had gone too far in the 1980s with the dream of the Asian Tigers in Korea, Singapore and Indonesia. It was accumulating a huge amount of finance capital coming from its exports to the US industrial–military apparatus, with which, during Yalta, it made a symbiosis for the production of microchips, which was later generalized by the Japanese finance capital, with the Japanese corporations going to civil branches of production of electronics and consumer goods. Through these branches it disputed, head to head against USA, the automaker, photo cameras, optics, home appliances, TV sets, etc. markets.
That was effectively an imperialist country, though vassal imperialism, even the most prostrated of them in the post–war period. It developed corporations, even disputing to USA some branches of production, and it has put some of its finance capital to re–value in Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia.
The vassal Japan with fresh dollars from its exports to USA bought US Treasure bonds and did not keep them in their reserves. Rather, it invested them and revalued as part of its finance capital, developing branches of production, even the robotics in the production line, giving birth to Toyota–ism to compete with Fordism, and also openly competing with Germany as an exporter of machine–tools to the world economy.
USA responded to this with Reagan, centering its offensive in the capitalist restoration in the USSR with its partner Gorbachev. It advanced in its “Star Wars” to force the bureaucracy to enter into an arms race, which would break down the productive forces of the workers state, while its joint ventures in South East China were advancing full speed under the umbrella of the Maoist bureaucracy. Thus, USA was coming out of the 1987 crisis with investments in the military–industrial apparatus.
As Japan advanced more than it should have with its investments in the Asian Tigers, with the national South Korean monopolies, the Chaebols, as Hyundai, Daewoo, etc., the entire world impressionist left –Mandel and the Pabloites among them talked about “the new imperialisms” of the Asian Tigers; as is normal for impressionist petty bourgeois currents of the metropolises.
Even worse, quack doctors of the world left foresaw the American decay and the huge rising of Japan in the world economy.
The Japanese, when buying the Twin Towers and the Empire State, made all the impressionist left and all the academic teachers to talk about a Japanese apogee and predicted US decay, while USA was making its biggest millionaire investments in the “star wars”, preparing the new branches of production such as the mobile phones and the most sophisticated computing, over the basis of the development of the war industry.
USA established the Sillicon Valley with the technological enterprises transforming the industry of war into civil branches and left Japan dislocated from the world labour division and in recession for 10 years. Meanwhile, Citibank and JP Morgan stole the 200 billion dollars that Yeltsin’s former bureaucracy transformed into bourgeoisie had taken away, and put the slave workers of Southeast China to work under the command of Wall Street and its junior partners, the bureaucrats’ children, who went to re–constitute the chief staff of the joint–ventures of the Southeast of China.
Thus, USA, the dominant power with the highest labour productivity in the planet linked to the war industry, leaning on the Stalinist bureaucracy defined in its favour the definitive result of the Second World War in 1989.
We repeat: In the expansion cycle of Clinton and the info–tech corporations in the ‘90s with Silicon Valley working at full speed together with the dotcom enterprises, Japan was dislocated from the world labour division and sent to recession for 10 years. And in 1997 the crisis started that marked the bankruptcy of the so–called imperialist countries by the Pabloite and Mandelite chatterboxes.

The chatters who today talks about the imperialist China that buy the US treasury bonds like Japan did, cannot distinguish between a lion and a herbivorous horse like Hu Jintao’s China. China can only buy treasuries and keep them in its safe and with its economy and all and its billions of dollars of the exports cannot be at the head of any branch of production in any sector of the world economy unless it is under the sphere of the finance capital (bank–plus–industrial capital) of USA or any other alternative imperialist power.
Finance capital covers its deficits with absolutely devaluated papers and securities issued by broke banks, as is the case of US. Instead China has to put fresh and real greenbacks.
To save its banks, US issues securities and treasury bonds for a total of 700 billion dollars! But they are treasury bonds, papers not real dollars.
Meanwhile to reactivate its economy and start a consumerist cycle, China had to put on the table 600 billion real dollars.
Any boss or intelligent petty bourgeois, not to speak of a class conscious worker, when watching this, says: “Who puts the money is the weak one. Who does not put a dime and that notwithstanding, is able to buy everything, that is the real master”. Because Big Capital makes its business deals with other people’s money. The petty bourgeois is who runs its business with its own money.
But in order to confound and deceive the workers if the world so that none of us can tell an oppressor nation from an oppressed one, or know they way that the bosses and their managers act, these revisionist currents have revised the definitions of colony and of semi colony, using the same method as the Mandelites used in the ‘80s to define the “semi–imperialist character” of the “Asian Tigers”.
Let’s see what they tell us utilizing a wholly pragmatic method. Trotsky in its work “In Defence of Marxism” had already alerted about the pragmatic character of the US left. But compared with today’s pragmatics, Burham and Shachtman could be considered as the Kings of Dialectics.
These people define a colony and a semi colony as follows:
“China does not fit the profile of a semi–colony. Semi–colonies have: 1) chronic trade deficits, 2) capital deficits, 3) huge national debts, and 4) relatively low growth rates as surplus value is pumped out of the economy by imperialism. Compared with Mexico which has all of these features, China is very different.”
We insist: these good gentlemen’s pragmatism would make Burnham and Shachtman blush.
We know imperialist countries that have a deficit of capital. For example in the present times most of the European countries are absolutely indebted, with capital deficits even to re–activate their economies, as is the case of Spain and Greece, this  1st one is in default for 300 billion dollars.
A relative stagnation reigns all over Europe from some years ago and even the most outstanding European imperialists do not grow at a faster pace than 2 or 3% per year; the same goes for US, which has a chronic trade imbalance and needs to live the inflow of capitals from the entire world.
What does this pragmatic, superficial, petty bourgeois method do in order to define what a semi colony is? It takes the outer forms, neither the essence, nor the content of the phenomenon. It defines an imperialist, a colonial, a semi colonial, or a worker state not according to the laws of historic materialism, that is, according to the laws of the productive forces, the structure and superstructure of society, but by its “profile”.
This is a full–length petty bourgeois method! It takes the superficial features. That was the method of Burnham and Shachtman: “Russia does not match the profile of a worker state”, they said. “It has a regime of bourgeois institutions, the law of value reproduces in it; there is a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy that oppresses other peoples; it makes trade deals with imperialism; it seeks to be accepted into the Society of Nations. Definitively it does not match the profile. It is not a worker state”.
Trotsky had to write a full book, “In Defence of Marxism”, to defend dialectics against those charlatans. But to repeat their method 70 years after... that can’t be forgiven. And to do that in the name of Trotskyism is even more serious; because it means that here we are facing deliberate deceivers and not only mistaken people.
Trotsky replied: The discussion is about essence and appearance. If someone shows me a wreckage of a car caused by a serious bump, I would ask ‘what the hell is this?’ It would not match the profile of a car, however it continues to be a car in its essence. The same is true for a worker state or a bureaucratised union, they continue belonging in the working class. That is their essence”.
We know prosperous colonies or semi colonies that in some period of their development have not had deficits; on the contrary they have had super abundance of capitals. For example, take all the OPEC countries as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Venezuela, which for some time had so much capital that they did not know what to do to reproduce it. But they had no other way out that going before their imperialist masters, that transformed the petrodollars into loans that later on were to build up the external debts with which the international finance capital made huge super profits.
In this moment there are plenty of colonies that have no trade deficits, as Argentina, Chile and Brazil, which have devaluated currencies in order that the MNCs can export from there commodities, soybeans and minerals at their will and convenience. They have even huge reserves in dollars and other hard currencies, but they cannot touch them because those reserves are kept as a collateral or guarantee for the free in–out flow of the investments of the imperialist MNCs. For that reason the Argentinean government was not permitted to take 6 billion dollars from its almost 49 billion dollars in reserves to serve its foreign debt payments.
Chile grew continually at rates between 7 and 9% per year, and Argentine did the same at rates of 8–9% annually for the last 7 years. Also India grew at rates of 7–8%, with FDI outflows of 10 billion dollars.
According to the definition of the minority, who defines by appearance, not by essence, we would be in front of semi colonies that are in fact imperialist countries, and in front of imperialist countries that are in fact semi colonies.
As true Cliffites, they are thoroughly irresponsible people; excellent continuers to Burnham and Shachtman and their anti dialectical method.
A colony or semi–colony is a nation that got late to the partition of the world and to reach its national independence in a moment when the world was already dominated by the finance capital, from 1914. And for that reason it has not been able to develop its democratic revolutionary tasks as the national independence and the land question.
If we define them as colonies we will say that they have not even a political independence to have their own government and their own state institutions. This is the case of Guadeloupe, Hong Kong and other colonial enclaves.
If they have a relative political independence, we will say that they are semi colonies, because they maintain pacts with imperialism that tie them to it.
In some moments of severe weakness affecting the regime of dominance of imperialism, as is the case during an inter imperialist war, the colonies or semi colonies may achieve a relative political independence from imperialism. Moreover, many a time the national bourgeoisies, by using the proletariat as a menace and keeping it under an iron control, tries to barter with imperialism –which is the biggest propertied class in all the colonies and semi colonies disputing it a part of the national revenues.
Precisely in a colony or semi colony there are two national tasks that the bourgeoisie cannot resolve any more within the national borders: the land question and the rupture with imperialism. A national bourgeoisie and the world economy can effectively resolve temporarily in a semi colonial country not to have trade deficits or low rates of growth.
The minority has sent to the trash bin the Theory of Permanent Revolution, the Transitional Program, the Criticism of the draft program of the Comintern and its pseudo–theory of the possibility of “socialism in one single country”. And they have also sent to the trash bin the Trotskyists’ struggle against Burnham and Shachtman’s revisionism in dialectics. They have not left anything of the Marxist theory on the relation between states in the imperialist epoch. There is where revisionism in the theory carries: to the liquidation of the Marxist science in order to justify the worse treasons to the proletariat!
The definition of China is: a transitory capitalist country, under a restorationist counterrevolutionary regime. It is a capitalist country in transition to being a semi colony or a direct colony, or to achieve the victory of the restoration of the proletarian dictatorship under revolutionary forms, a question that will be resolved historically in the world class struggle at an international level, and in the world arena.
These are the two alternatives for China in a world that has been already completely conquered by the international finance capital.
The filthy bourgeoisie coming out of Stalinism in China cannot even give a new Chiang Kai Shek that is a bourgeois nationalist that bartered with imperialism by means of the controlled mobilization of the masses. This current rubbish can only act as lackeys and direct agents of the world counterrevolution.
And the proof is in the type of Bonapartist, Pinochet–like regime established in China. Because the smallest concession allowing for partial democratic liberties, or the smallest gap in the totalitarian oppressive regime of these direct agents of counterrevolution in China, would allow the beginning of a revolt of the whole of the masses and their heads would roll down in a few days.
Do you really think that this rubbish of a clique of agents for the international finance capital is going to confront Obama and US imperialism and to dispute them the world? If the dare to do that, it would be as agents and mercenaries to another imperialist power; this cannot be discarded in a more or less near future; we cannot either discard that this bourgeois clique of creeping managers resulting form the Chinese Stalinists splits around which imperialism is more convenient for them to serve.
And now that things look clearer, we challenge you: IF THE ENGINE THAT HAS ALLOWED CHINA TO ADVANCE CONSISTS OF THE STATIZED ENTERPRISES, WHY DOES THIS INTELLIGENT “IMPERIALIST BOURGEOISIE” NOT STATIZE ALL THE ENTERPRISES? WHY IT DOES NOT RE–STATIZE THE BANKS AND THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN ORDER TO BLOCK THE CURRENT “PRESSURE” FROM OBAMA AND THE US?
If it is an imperialist nation that means it is an independent nation. We do not understand why it cannot do that.
But, alas! It cannot take those kinds of measures because “Imperialist China” is a joke, a hoax, the same as your theory of “state capitalism”. Because that would amount (as we said above, following Trotsky’s “The Revolution Betrayed”) to an utopian “state capitalism” that statizes ALL the enterprises and shares ALL their dividends among all the capitalists, who would kill each other in order to get those dividends. That is, a reactionary Utopia concocted by the UK–US  and Japanese Cliffites.

This revisionism of the FLTI public fraction is not a continuity of the Marxist program or the theoretical and political legacy of the Fourth International.
Read carefully what you have written: “The answer can be found by going back to the salient point that the secret of China’s “success” rests in its highly centralized state banks and SOEs which can act to take advantage of the global recession”.
Without recognizing it, the theoreticians of “imperialism in one country” and the peaceful restoration ended up being defenders resolutely of the Stalinist theory of socialism in one country.
These practitioners of a “dynamic, new, non–sectarian Marxism, no stick to old formulas of the 60’s” repeat anti–Marxist vulgarities defeated by Marxism more than 80 years ago. Finally, you will be who will end continuing the Stalinist theory of Socialism in one country.
Since, what was the theory of socialism in one country based on? On the idea that the development of a nationalized and state–ized economy in a backward country where the revolution has won, made it possible to make this country reach the imperialist status in its development, without the need to expand the revolution at worldwide level.
The public fraction has said that as China maintained the state productive forces and the state production branches, China obtained a comparative advantage which allowed this country to dispute USA its control over the world economy.
You affirm this for a China with the 70% of its key productive branches privatized! Thus, the leftover of state economy made the miracle of transforming China into an imperialist country that disputes the world to USA!
We ask you: with these positions, wouldn’t Mao and Stalin spring out of their graves and applaud? Wouldn’t Bukharin celebrate it? And wouldn’t he shout: “Let peasants enrich themselves, let bourgeois enrich themselves, and let imperialists enrich themselves...! With state companies we are disputing the world to the masters.”?
However, Leninism, Trotskyism and the entire living Marxist theory in the imperialist epoch emerged to affirm that the state economy of a worker state (either deformed or revolutionary) cannot even dream to reach the productive forces of a more developed imperialist country. Re–phrasing the Third International: “The Soviet Russia will disappear unless the German proletariat wins! Let’s set up right now the 3rd International, so the German and European revolution successes! The backwards countries can reach first the proletariat dictatorship, but last socialism.”
We insist. You are not saying yet that a worker state, with a state economy, with a soviet regime can reach an imperialist country, a question that is impossible (and it has already been proved by the decay of the productive forces of a country isolated by the world imperialist economy as it was the Soviet Union). What you are affirming is that the state national forces, that is, the continuity –under the control of a bourgeoisie government– of such state companies where capitalism was restored subjugating China to the international financial capital domination, made the “miracle” that even the worker state was not able to do nor could even dream to do.
The tail is wagging the dog and the dog, trying to bite it, thinks to be advancing forwards. Instead it is going round and round, and gets always to the same place, perhaps even making a hole to dig into. You, by embracing the theory of “socialism in one single country”, which rests, as we have seen before, in the “national peculiarities” are making an apology of market socialism. It is the same discourse of Hu Jintao, the continuator of Mao and Stalin.
But this is a bastard, senile and decadent degradation of the Stalinist theory of Socialism in one country. One cannot seriously talk about an imperialist Russia when the 49% of the gas and oil companies of Russia are in the hands of German BASF, where the Russian state pays the expenses and the exploration investments and BASF makes the refining and the distribution to all Europe.
It cannot be affirmed that China becomes “imperialist” when all the state banks went broke in 2001, with unpaid loans of 320.000 billion of dollars that had gone to subsidize the broke state companies which produce loss with a low labor productivity, with the collapse of a mine per day, with obsolete steel factories and a regime of agrarian rent and land exploitation that in relation to Ukraine, Argentine, Brazil, or any cheap semi colonial country is 50 years backward, with such an irrational management of the fields that in 20 years it has acidified them at a rate 200 times that of a normal use, rendering them useless in ever growing areas.
In this economy, 1,2 billion industrial workers as well as ruined peasants and rural workers live in China under the subsistence level, eating insects as a previous step to cannibalism, which would come next if thing go on as now, like they had to do in China before the revolution; meanwhile there are 250,000 revolts due per year originated in hunger, counted one by one by the Pentagon and the US Congress Committee of Studies on China.
The vast majority of the productive forces of China –among them human labor being the most important one– are in complete decay, degraded and bankrupt. These productive forces are combined with the production of the most advanced machines and the most advanced technology in the hands of the imperialist power to produce mainly consumer goods for the world market. And if the Chinese parasites want to produce them, they must pay patents and royalties as any semi colony and give explanations to the WTO.
In “The Revolution Betrayed” Trotsky stated: “Russia was not the strongest, but the weakest link in the chain of capitalism. The present Soviet Union does not stand above the world level of economy, but is only trying to catch up to the capitalist countries. If Marx called that society which was to be formed upon the basis of a socialization of the productive forces of the most advanced capitalism of its epoch, the lowest stage of communism, then this designation obviously does not apply to the Soviet Union, which is still today considerably poorer in technique, culture and the good things of life than the capitalist countries. It would be truer, therefore, to name the present Soviet regime in all its contradictoriness, not a socialist regime, but a preparatory regime transitional from capitalism to socialism.” (...) “The strength and stability of regimes are determined in the long run by the relative productivity of their labor.”
If this was Stalin’s Soviet Union and its state and nationalized productive forces and if the limit of the backwardness allowed Russia to reach first the revolution, but not socialism without the victory of German revolution, what this public fraction is saying is that the state companies kept by the counterrevolutionary restored government to subsidize the imperialist companies were the driving force of the future imperialist China, and for that reason it is now able to dispute the world domination hand to hand to all the imperialist powers. But such state companies, mines and metals/iron and steel industry have a labor productivity average comparable to those of Honduras, Puerto Rico and any other semi colonial country!
With its entire economy state–ized, why could not the USSR be like Germany and it only could have had resolved its backwardness the proletariat would have taken the power there? Trotsky, in “The Revolution Betrayed” explained it better. Messrs. Ignoramus, it is about the productivity of labour, and that cannot be substituted. It is a certain cultural level of the working class, of the engineers and technicians of a given country. It is about the infrastructure, of the technology, the methods of production, of the labour organization: they cannot be copied instantly.
The Soviet bureaucracy went on for long years copying Western automaker and plane–building plants. But they were scraps. The only possibility for the USSR to attain the most state–of–the art technology was if the workers took the power in US, Germany and Japan, and establishing a deliberate, scientific, centralized planning of the world economy.
For that reason the plan of privatizations of the state owned companies is impossible on the part of the counterrevolutionary party of the red mandarins who today are obliged to privatize them (as they did in the past with the bankrupt banks) since HSBC and JP Morgan are not going to keep funding any state company when they lose money. That is why they attack in Tonghua/Lingzou, but workers resisted the plan with revolts and mutinies defending their jobs and the nationalized economy.

Today, the public fraction declares that it is possible the emergence of an imperialism within the frames of the national borders; that a country starting only from its own national productive forces can become imperialist. Those revisionists take the economy of one country separately from the world economy, break up the world economy distributing it in isolated spaces, without any connection between them.
Your national vision of the productive forces gives them inevitably an endless power, since they have no need to be measured in comparison with those of other countries in the world economy arena but have simply to develop the national economy. Thereby, the backward productive forces of one country can make such a miracle as surpassing the productive forces of the imperialist powers.
From that to the Stalinist “two–stages” theory of revolution only a few steps remain. “Minimum and maximum programs” as you have proposed for Haiti are already a consequence of this political degeneration that is eating from inside our minority.
In that way, the members of the public fraction of FLTI are prepared to sign with their both hands what Stalin said. The arguments of the public FLTI fraction are the same that Stalin used, since it is the same theoretical matrix: the national productive forces can be developed in isolation and in their development can reach the most advanced of the productive forces. While Stalin used this pseudo–theory to prove that it was possible to develop the economy of a poor worker state technically, the revisionists today use it to justify that a backward country, exploited and pilfered by imperialism can become imperialist.
Thus, they end up being the continuers of “socialism in one country” but today under the theory that can be called “imperialism in one country”. For that reason, when Tonghua exploited you did not take it into account. You knew about that event, but you only wrote about this historic fact when the FLTI knew about it and transformed it into a combat program for the international proletariat: “Stand up with the Chinese workers of Tonghua and Lingzou! This is the way to fight in order to keep the jobs! This is the way to fight against the privatization plan! As in Tonghua, Lingzou, as in Mexico, this is the way!” “As the treacherous leaderships sold out the jobs in Kraft Argentina, in GM and in the dismissals in Europe, this is not the way!”
The minority only intervened to say that the stop of the privatization imposed by the workers was “a concession of the red Mandarins to the masses”. In a letter you wrote:
“The workers at Tonghua won because the state backed down to halt the privatization. This is a victory but it is not part of a generalized challenge to the ruling CCP... The reformist settlement at Tonghua is possible because China is not facing a pre–revolutionary situation. The Chinese ruling class doesn’t need to privatize steel. The Tonghua plant is profitable again as it has modernized and exploits the ore supplied by the DRKP. It has interests in Australian mining also. It will probably be restructured as the state plan is to concentrate China’s steel production into 5 or 6 massive plants. So our focus has to be not to paint a false picture of the class struggle in China but to try join forces in a united front for workers control of steel production.” (CWG Letter, 1/12/09)
Has the Chinese state really given “a concession to the masses”? Could the minority tell us what would have happened if dozens of thousand of US workers would have hang up the manager of GM, and the government would have given back all the gains that the AFL–CIO had sold out?
Today, you repeat what the social democracy repeated more than 100 years ago and Stalinism has echoed since 1924. You affirm that there were a great advance of the productive forces, and therefore the epoch of peaceful reforms conquered in the parliament and the strikes authorized by the state have come back and the Lenin and Trotsky apothegm that reforms are a sub–product of the revolutionary struggle is no longer valid.
Now, we understand why you hid Tonghua and you did not mention it in our document on the World Situation. Because you have never taken it as a part of a revolutionary program, because you have never ever said that this was the way “for more Tonghuas and not Krafts”, that is, for revolutionary struggles to get everything and not for the submission to the boss state and its labour minister. You kept silent because this was not your program!
In your real program, servants of market socialism, the fight is not to defend the jobs left in the state companies that the Chinese Mandarins want to privatize and the world imperialism wants to swallow. For you the fight is only to reform the capitalist restorationist regime in China, as this regime defends the “state companies” as England or Hitler did when it was convenient to them and when it was no longer useful they privatized them, this process has begun in China. For that reason a Chinese CP boss was strangled and massacred BY THE CHINESE WORKERS WHO HAVE A CORRECT VISION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE. And if there are any bosses who oppose to the privatization, it is because they are afraid their head could roll down as the head of the boss in Tonghua and Lingzou.
According to you, the Chinese regime would be so perfect and potent that the only task you propose against this opprobrious and terrible regime of Hu Jintao and the Chinese Mandarins, against their policy to sell out and privatize is, according to your own words: “So our focus has to be not to paint a false picture of the class struggle in China but to try join forces in a united front for workers control of steel production” And that “if the state supported the halt of the privatization”. Are you proposing as FLTI policy in China a united front with the communist party of the Chinese Mandarins, murders and killers of the Chinese working class because it is against the privatizations? If it is in this way, we make it clear: A workers united front with the slave–owner bosses, NEVER! United Front with the privatizing bosses, NO WAY!
You, as a public fraction have to realize where this position is leading you. Any serious militant has to think where its own position leads him and if this position is applied what implications it has, if for the proletariat or against it, if these implications make the proletariat trust in its own forces, if they help them to take out the blinds the treacherous leaderships put on the workers’ eyes; if these positions call the proletarians to combat or if they throw sand towards their eyes.
Don’t you realize that your program, theory and strategy end up being the fifth wheel of the Fifth International of Hu Jintao and Chavez? Don’t you realize that your position is to tell the Chinese workers that the restored China of the maquilas, of the slave workers, is resolved with state economy in a united front with the party of the Chinese Mandarins? Don’t you realize that you support market socialism adorning it with “workers control” of the “state owned industry”? Don’t you realize that you end up being the continuers of Bukharinism who want to reform and give a “progressive” course to market socialism?
This is to put the proletariat on its knees before capitalism... but with “workers control”, in a “united front”... with the party of the red businessmen! Please, realize where your empiric–criticism is taking you: to unify Trotskyism with the bourgeois restorationist nomenklatura of the Chinese Mandarins. We do not act subjectively, we seek the truth and for that reason we ask you to return to Marxism, and realize the bankruptcy to where your current positions are taking you.
In 89 Mandel and his Unified Secretary fought for a “Party of Jaurés (that is, a pacifist and reformist, though a good–willed one, as he was murdered when the 1WW began) and Lenin”, as LCR they resigned the proletariat dictatorship. You with your positions are proposing the “Party of Trotsky and Hu Jintao”.
We totally disagree. From our point of view, your position makes you end in the left wing of Hu Jintao and his Fifth International.

The FLTI minority told us that in Latin America: “You do not understand that the exploiting power is not USA, but China” (Letter dated on 16/12/09). “The exploiting one is not the Anglo–American, but the Chinese”. You say this about Africa. You affirm this when Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are plundered through unpayable foreign debts of the imperialist international banks that are the greatest plunderers of the world. In Latin America these foreign debts were assumed by the military dictatorships that in the 80’s took loans for 300.000 million dollars. Today these debts have 10 times more their value and imperialism has already extracted through them more than 10 trillion dollars, causing the worst suffering for the masses.
In this way, you tell the Latin American workers to abandon the cry of the Bolivian Revolution on 2003–2005: “Out gringos! No payment of the foreign debt!” “Out Anglo–American who sells expensively the minerals to the red Mandarins who then leave them cheap for the same companies of the Anglo American financial capital. Anglo American buys them in China to sink the salary of the Chinese, English, North American, South African and world working class”.
 The only thing that can prevent China from being divided in a future imperialist war is that the Chinese workers begin an uprising, set up their fighting organs of direct democracy and self defense, unify their ranks, from the slave workers of the maquilas to the better paid workers of the state companies that today are threatened with the loss of their jobs and get into maneuvers of political fight by hanging up managers of the maquilas, the red mandarins and expelling USA, not only from China but the entire Asia. Because the Chinese revolution is Asian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese. In short, getting into open political struggle against the regime of terror of the red mandarins, managers and junior partner of the imperialist, the Chinese workers would take the path towards the combat to restore the proletarian dictatorship under revolutionary forms, making China (which is a countertendency of the crisis) a bastion of the Asian and world revolution. The FLTI minority is enemy of this program.
What Trotsky warned in his criticism of the International Communist of 1928 was that Stalinism, taking the same theoretical matrix of the social democracy, was preparing to betray the proletarian revolution.. The theoretical matrix of FLTI minority is the same of Stalinism: nationalism, national socialism. And this is what we are going to discuss is facing the international worker vanguard.

The minority ignores China’s place is Nº 130 in the list of countries according to the GDP per person and you only focus on the size of the Chinese economy, which surpasses that of Japan.
In the last period of 2009, for example, China has a GDP of 4,6 trillions dollar which was higher than the Japanese one (4,2 trillion dollars) but Japan is inside China because it is the owner of maquilas and transnational companies relocated there! Thus, you try to accommodate the reality according to your pseudo–theory, making up that China has imperialist monopolies, when it only has national monopolies.
It seems that you have no idea what the monopolies are, and for that reason you do not distinguish between a national monopoly of a backward country from an imperialist monopoly which takes part of the control of a determined branch of production.
There are a lot of examples for national monopolies. There were monopolies in the Latin American countries before the privatization in the 90’s and there still exist today. Thus, in the 80’s the Argentinean YPF had the monopoly of the oil extraction in Argentina and exported to the world market ruled by the so–called “7 sisters” that control the entire oil and gas branch. That is to say, YPF had a sector of this world market, without competing with the imperialist dominant monopolies of the oil branch of production.
In Mexico, in the late 30’s, Cardenas state–ized the Mexican oil, setting up a national monopoly. And even today the state monopolies exist in Mexico such as that of services –water, post office, so on– such as Luz y Fuerza (Energy) del Centro, that today the Mexican regime of the FTA wants to privatize.
A national monopoly controls a little part of the market and the branch, as long as those that have the control of the whole branch of production allow it: the imperialist monopoly controls the world production. Thus, the national monopolies work in fact as parts, linked to the trusts and cartels that control the whole branches of production as a nut is part of a watch. For that reason, we will never see a national monopoly confronting with international monopolies, disputing branches of production.
This is what happens with China. The current Chinese national monopolies, which are the state companies, earn surplus value that benefits the transnationals established in the South East –to which the state companies sell supplies in order to produce– and the great financial oligarchy which takes the Chinese national savings through the control of the Chinese banks. Thus, these Chinese national monopolies are at the service of the imperialist trusts, which are international, and as Trotsky said imperialism does not suppress the competency, but puts it on the knees.
The professors of the chatterbox swamp of the UK–US Left –who typically come from universities– do not understand anything about the Marxist theory on economy and don’t care either. Anyway, they distort it at every step. It seems that they only walk around with a big book by Samuelson under their arms. Let’s remember that Samuelson is the knight of the military Keynesianism and is always used by USA to get out of its crisis. Surely at this moment Obama is taking classes from Samuelson’ students, as he gave classes of economy to the USA presidents in the 60’s–; for these UK–US professors Lenin, Marx and Trotsky are not understandable, they cannot digest them and they prefer to fake their positions and destroy them. In the July Congress, the minority tried to argue that China was imperialist because of the fact that its Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) outflows –and you call them “capital exportation”– were bigger to the FDI inflows. According to them, this process is done generally in the imperialist countries. At the same time you argued that China was imperialist because it has nationalities and ethnicities that it oppresses.
Therefore, you should say that India is imperialist because only in 2006 the FDI outflow of the main Indian companies (without counting the state or others companies), reached 10 thousand million dollars and the total FDI outflow reached the FDI inflows. So, it is the same that happens in China. Also, India has oppressed nations such as the Tamils. India also has a GDP that grew solidly from 2003 to 2008 at an 8.7% per year. Also, Goldman Sachs affirms that in 20 years India would be the third world economy, behind USA and China. With that data and with the “opinion” of the experts of US imperialist financial capital that the professors take as indicator, what are you waiting to declare India is an imperialist country?

As it could not be otherwise, this new revisionism changes its positions with the evolution of the continued rounds of the world economic crisis, keeps adapting to the different moments of it like a lackey of the social democracy and the union bureaucracy of the imperialist countries.
In 2007 the Shanghai financial bubble exploded (a stock market totally controlled by the financial capital of Hong Kong, Singapore, Wall Street, Japan and HSBC), with commercial banks which subsidized with losses the investments of all the imperialist companies in China and they financed with losses and with the bankruptcy of all its banks in 2001 a obsolete state industry that produced inputs for the production branches controlled by imperialism that got cheap supplies from it. Of course at that moment, no Pabloist impressionist could even dare to raise the head and talk about a Chinese imperialism with all the broken Chinese banks, with 320 billion dollars in totally unpayable loans, with millions of slave workers in the joint ventures and a stock exchange market under the absolute control of HSBC and Morgan super banks which was created by the Chinese market socialism in ‘97.
Here and there they cried: “from 2003 up to now China is the only one that has grown”. Now that all the imperialist powers are sunk in recession, now China in the middle of its expansion would be taking into advantage the crisis of the other imperialist powers, a new imperialism that went out to buy with its “surplus”  –called “financial capital” according to the minority and the revisionists– everything in front of them in the zones belonging in the spheres of influence of USA and Europe.
In 2007 the impressionists, especially those that were servants to the “anti–capitalist” parties of their own imperialism, announced the ruin of China. Some of them even said “China can be socialist before it can be imperialist”. But they had never before gone as far as to say that China can be imperialist without wars, without fascism and without smashing the world revolution and the international proletariat.
Now, the new revisionist fashion is that China is a new imperialism, and therefore a new engine has emerged disputing the world with its own international financial capital based on the current ruin of the imperialist powers, their recession and crack; it emerges as a power in the 21st century disputing the world as Germany did it in the First and Second world war but this time in a peaceful way.
The eclectics, as is normal for impressionist revisionists get shocked by the events of the reality. They take each event out of the structure, give it a limitless value, and changes it in a matrix and then tries to accommodate all the events of the reality –everything that is written in cyberspace, anything said by any charlatan around the world– to this idea in their heads.
Thus, the impressionist becomes an idealist, that is, a great eclectic because he needs to justify the unjustifiable, inventing all the time mythological figures, as the centaur, the summit of eclecticism in order to try to justify and explain in real life the idea that he himself has created.
6 months ago, our impressionists did not know if China was going into recession after the Shanghai crisis in 2007. So, they affirmed that China was a contradictory country, half semi–colony and half imperialist for its 20 billion dollars of the foreign direct investments, for a surplus in its coffers of 1,6 trillion dollars, for investing in Morgan super bank or Citibank in crisis part of its capital (now called “financial”) and for buying raw material in all the spheres of influence of USA. Now, from being a kind of centaur during the last boom of the Chinese consumption, China has gone to be openly imperialist and disputes the world to USA.
All of this is called “dialectic thinking”. Without following any law that rules the historical processes, i.e. any theory, the empiric and pragmatic Anglo–Saxon savants want to convince the revolutionary Marxists of their point of view in front of new events they have tried to answer enthusiastically.
Poisoning the consciousness of the proletariat; we affirm that revisionism tries to justify the actions of reformism first and then of counterrevolution. From there, whoever does not fight against revisionism, does not fight against the class enemy and abandons the programmatic positions conquered in the previous revolutionary process and the FLTI Trotskyists are not willing to do that.
Then, we will see how Merlin and his alchemy make a rabbit come out from a top hat, in order to make up an imperialist China.