MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT POSITION PAPER ON THE LITTLE DRAGONS Last edit: 8/26/92 Maoist view of success of south Korea and Taiwan Now we will return to the subject of Korea. South Korea is very important because it is an exception in the post- World War II period. It has been a Third World country that has successfully developed. People should realize that the "four tigers" or "little dragons"--Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are exceptions in the history of developing in the dependent capitalist orbit. Even if capitalism "worked" for these four, it would not prove anything about the possibilities for development under imperialism. The reason is that you would have to count all the failures that went with the successes. And as we have already documented, those failures account for massive starvation death and inadequate health care that amounts to a virtual genocide for "low-income" countries where most of the human-race lives. (Ask us for the posts on this if you missed them.) At least 22 capitalist-dominated countries have suffered an actual decline in per capita income in recent years according to the U.S. Statistical Abstract. The imperialists can still exploit most countries mercilessly, so a few exceptions are allowed by the system to develop while other countries decline in the international capitalist sweepstakes. The winners and losers change from time to time, but the system stays the same. OK, but south Korea is an exception. Why? The reason is that the United States and East Asian capitalists jumped on the bandwagon of class struggle at a crucial point at the completion of World War II and the Korean War. Without much fanfare, these capitalists and the United States had the sense to copy what Mao was doing in China wholesale. What did they copy? They copied land reform. Why did they copy it? Because the communists had just kicked capitalist ass in China and were starting to do the same in Korea and Vietnam. The capitalists learned their lesson and when they got the chance, they ditched their landlord oppressor partners. The reason Korea and Taiwan succeeded while the rest of the Third World also worked hard at development without succeeding is that communist class struggle gave the capitalists the chance to get rid of the strong influence of the landlord class, an influence which continued in India, El Salvador, the Philippines and the Third World generally which still desperately needs the destruction of the landlord class's power--the destruction of semi-feudalism. Korea As most people on this net probably know, the communists came very close to winning the civil war in Korea by sweeping south before the United States troops landed in the Korean War. There was really only a toehold for capitalism left on the very southern tip before the U.S. landed. The nearly complete communist victory gave the U.S. imperialists and southern capitalists their chance to leave their landlord partners in the dust, historically speaking. Listen to the bourgeois economists lump South Korea in with the communist countries for copying land reform: "The best-known successful land reforms have commonly involved little or no compensation for confiscated assets of landlords. Such was the case in Russia after 1917 and China after 1949, as well as in Japanese and South Korean reforms after World War II." (Malcolm Gillis, Dwight Perkins, Michael Roemer, Donald Snodgrass, Economics of Development (NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1992), p. 499. Japan One reason that land-reform was acceptable even in bourgeois circles pressed by the communists is that the landlords in East Asia were on the wrong side of the war. In China they lined up with the Japanese, often serving as Japanese occupation government officials. Of course, Japan was quite developed already earlier this century so Japan is not relevant to our development discussion here, but Japan is relevant in its role in the war and class struggle. Again in Japan, we see the United States copy the communists; although no one would know it based on how little attention the issue of land reform gets. "The Japanese land reform that followed World War II was different in important respects from the Chinese experience. Land reform in Japan was carried out by the U.S. Occupation forces. The Occupation government believed that the landlord class had been an important support of the forces in Japanese society that brought about World War II. . . .Since the Americans had won the war, Japanese landlords were not in a position to offer resistance to reform, and a thoroughgoing reform was carried out. Compensation for landlords was provided for in legislation, but inflation soon had the effect of sharply reducing the real value of the amounts offered. As a result Japanese land reform also amounted to confiscation of landlord land with little compensation." (Ibid., pp. 497-8) In contrast, land reforms in places like India failed. The political mechanism was not there. (Ibid., p. 498) Basically, the communists in India did not succeed well enough to do all the work for the capitalists. Taiwan People on this net probably realize that when the Guomindang moved to Taiwan, it was uprooted from its land on the Mainland. In this case, exile by the Maoist communists was the best thing for these ex-landlords. Having had their ties to the land cut, these people could now take up a new life. In their new home, the Guomindang, again with U.S. backing, learned their lessons. They did not allow the old patterns of landlord domination to occur in Taiwan and in fact they saw to a very high level of income equality generally. The gini coefficient in Taiwan is one of the lowest--.326. (Ibid., p. 76) The U.S. role in backing landlord-regimes The U.S. foreign policy is basically opportunist but consistently pro-U.S. interests. When the United States needs stable allies it allies with landlord-dominated regimes--like El Salvador or Marcos/Aquino in the Philippines. When the United States and its ruling class friends get their butts kicked, then the U.S. gets on the bandwagon. In El Salvador and the Philippines, the United States lacks both the will and power to force real land reform through. In East Asia though, the balance of power was basically set by the communists, so the United States could choose to do without the landlords in some cases. In both East Asia and the rest of the world, narrow geopolitical (imperialist) interests prevailed but with different results reflecting differing balances of power. The United States will never act as a real agent for modernization in the Third World. It chooses not to rock the boat, because it seeks landlord-dominated regimes as allies. The U.S. imperialists have no inherent interest in land reform like communists do. If landlord and bureaucrat-capitalist Somoza can get the job done of backing the United States, assuring resources etc. then Somoza will get U.S. aid. It is U.S. support to landlords and capitalist-bureacrats in the Third World that Mao dubbed "compradors" that makes the United States the number one prop of "order" and the number one public health menace. East-West comparisons One remaining problem is why did Taiwan and south Korea diversify and industrialize more successfully than China and north Korea? We will leave out issues like south Korean massacres in Kwangju and the mass starvations that didn't happen in the north. What about the economy? People will recall that we Maoists have had doubts about north Korea. We don't believe it is socialist and few people have much real information about it. Still, it is clear that north Korea did not have the option of export-led development to the world's largest economy--the United States. The same is true of China. China, Taiwan and Korea were predominantly agricultural societies, but the United States and ruling classes copied the communists on agricultural issues. Hence south Korea and Taiwan garnered the benefits of intense class struggle led by communists. What south Korea and Taiwan had that China and north Korea did not have is the world's largest industrial market available. Indeed, China and north Korea had to devote large resources to defending themselves against U.S. imperialism. Had the United States been a socialist country, the story would have been different. Then China and north Korea would have had the same chance as Taiwan and south Korea. This points to the serious duty of U.S. residents to bring down U.S. imperialism, so that all countries can be brought together in a cooperative world economy, not just the ones favored by U.S. imperialist circles. In conclusion: 1. Where there is no land reform (the breaking of the landlord class), there is no development. 2. The communists have been the single most important force for land reform. The success of the "little dragons" is due to socialism. 3. The rest of the world can develop quickly if we can break the alliance between the imperialists and landlords and open the Western economy to cooperation with the Third World. MIM is going to publish a theory journal on this subject either this fall or in January. We welcome all responses to the above for publication either anonymously or by name. Our theory journal attempts to reflect debate and development of thought, especially debate between communists and non-communists. Maoism on international trade relations by the Maoist Internationalist Movement Look, a lot of people are questioning our Maoist credentials, especially when we say export-led development in Taiwan and Korea were possible. Below we reproduce a quote from the political economy textbook published by the Gang of Four in Shanghai, but first I would like to clarify some issues. 1. The bourgeois media simplifies Maoist views on trade, saying Maoists simply favored autarky. That is basically correct, but only under conditions where imperialism dominates. Those of us who are in the United States now should realize that they have different responsibilities than they did in their original countries. If we U.S. residents could bring down U.S. imperialism, that would be the biggest service to Third World peoples that we could render. Then autarky would not be required beause there would be no imperialists making war and superexploiting the Third World masses. The examples of Korea and Taiwan prove a very simple point: there is a benefit for economic specialization, where terms can be rendered fairly. Korean and Taiwanese workers were superexploited by U.S. imperialists, but the U.S. imperialist-bloc was under tremendous pressure ever since World War II to put East Asia on a sound economic footing. That is, the U.S. imperialists needed desperately to let a minority of countries develop successfully while the majority stagnated or regressed. U.S. aid to Japan is famous and as we mentioned in earlier posts, we think the exception of U.S.-backed class struggle proves the rule that class struggle moves history forward. Those exceptions are Taiwan, Korea and Japan where the U.S. supported thorough land reform. 2. People who say China had new landlords after Mao came to power have no explanation why China outperformed all countries in its income category in public health and education. (See previous posts or ask me for them.) The "low-income" countries averaged a life expectancy of 50, while China garnered a life expectancy of 68 and surpassed the average of 60 for "middle-income" countries. Basically people who say Mao was just another landlord missed out on how China did much better than India, Bangladesh, Philippines etc. Meanwhile, our theory explains this perfectly because we say that China got a boost from land reform, but not as much as Taiwan because Taiwan benefitted from export-led development and its attendant economic specialization, something possible ONLY in a minority of countries because of imperialist global strategies and the fact that the imperialist system gangs up on the vast majority of countries to keep them under control for resource exploitation. 3. The situation of newly emerging capitalist successes is not happening for the first time with Japan, Korea and Taiwan. It also happened with Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Germany rocked the Anglo-French boat and World War I was the result of economic alliances. This newsgroup is not about World War I, but the same thing is happening now, so I suggest people go read a book like Richard Krooth's Arms and Empire. (I can get you a copy if you send me a note.) ____________________________________ >From Chapter 22, "Mutual Aid and Exchange" Fundamentals of Political Economy, PRC, 1974 On aid-- "Whatever the form of economic aid, the sovereignty of the recipient countries must be strictly respected. No strings should be attached." (p. 474) On monoculture development-- "The socialist country first of all does its best to help them develop a diversified agriculture which aims at satisfying domestic needs, gradually altering their dependence on imports of major agricultural products and making their national economies develop healthily on the basis of gradually strengthening agriculture." (p. 480) On principles of foreign economic aid, 1964: 1. . . . .Regard aid as mutual assistance. [MIM: They are right. When other friendly and cooperative countries develop other cooperative countries benefit because of the advantages of economic specialization and the impetus to peace.] 2. See above. 3. Provide economic aid without interest. . . 4. The purpose of aid is not to create the recipient country's dependence. . . 5. Projects chosen for aid in the recipient country should require low investment and short gestation. . . 6. Provide the best possible equipment and raw materials we produce and negotiate prices according to international market conditions. . . 7. In providing any technical aid, guarantee that the personnel of the recipient country will fully master this technical know-how. 8. Experts sent to the recipient country to help with construction should receive the same material treatment as the experts of the recipient country. No special requirements or treatment are allowed." (p. 481) I think the above is especially relevant to those of us in the United States. These eight principles are impossible within a capitalist system and I believe most people on this conference would recognize that. "Actively develop the socialist state's foreign trade" "There are new characteristics in the Foreign Trade of the Socialist State" (p. 482) "Chairman Mao pointed out: 'We must endeavor to do business first with the socialist countries and the people's democratic countries as well as with the capitalist countries.' We must carry on planned commercial exchanges among the socialist countries under the guidance of the principle of proletarian internationalism and according to the spirit of active cooperation and no nonsense." (pp. 484-5) Copies of this political economy textbook are available. Send me a note. Basically you can see it is an oversimplification to say Mao wanted no trade. He saw its potential, but he also realized that it was difficult to have cooperative trade in an imperialist-dominated world. _____________________________________________________________ If you had been reading MIM Notes, the newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, you would know all this already. Subscriptions: Send $12 for 12 issues of MIM Notes MIM Distributors PO Box 3576 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576 Make checks out to "ABS" or send cash.