Modern China in the political arena most of all, presents itself as a kind of "thing in itself”, talk of which, risks uncertainties. However, the occupying by the Middle Kingdom of second place in the world in GDP terms, indicates the success of the country's economy, which is impossible to ignore. The appearance of an excellent booklet by A.A. Mayevsky, entitled "Modern China"
is fully justified. At the same time, there are no grounds to say that part of his book, describing the economics of China, fully clarifies the situation.
First of all, an analysis of the political life of China can not build on the economic patterns of Western analysts of the world market for one reason: this material in itself is a basis for inflating the "financial bubble" and clarity in the analysis is not added. At the same time, we must not forget that the political component of Chinese life should not be taken out of the overall picture of the former Third World countries which are now the developing world. And in this developing world, the Celestial Empire has become the recognized leader. In addition, current speculation by present day "communists" that pop up from time to time in bourgeois parliaments about the success of China, on the one hand, is justified, but on the other hand, is a traditional expression of "parliamentary cretinism" by "leftist" MPs masking the imperialist essence of exploitation. And this should be discussed in more detail when this business touches upon the essence of anarcho-syndicalism.
But when analyzing the current state of China, one can not ignore the phenomenon of the selling of labour power for maintaining the services of imperialism. Accordingly, the alliance between the Chinese bourgeoisie, which has become the leading force of society, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is cautious . As such, the alliance seeks the establishment of National Socialism. And all this on a the background of the fact that the role of Fuehrers in the modern world of imperialism have already been allocated, since those willing to perform the functions of the world of violence have taken shape in the face of American and Zionist capital, ready at the first opportunity to launch their military machine of repression into action.
Therefore, examining China is possible only through the prism of the modern national liberation struggle, marked by Lenin as "concessions on capitalist foundations means war." That is, it makes sense to analyze it only through similar stages of Soviet Russia’s exit of from the clutches of concessions, since the modern developing world is also seeking to break free from imperialist stranglehold. And here you can see many similarities between the 1920-s in the young Soviet republic and the current years in the developing world. In essence, we must consider how the patriotic section of the bourgeoisie was able to help in the electrification of the entire country "when the productive forces of the working class of Russia were very weak. Now what is required is an assessment of the ability (or patriotism) of that section of bourgeoisie of the Middle Kingdom, with which it can fit into the “electrification of the whole of China", when the productive forces of the country are not yet able to assume the leadership role.
We can not ignore the fact that the wave of revolutionary unrest in the Muslim world is expressed, above all, by the interests of small capital, crushed by imperialism and by their own dictators. At the same time, the military vehicles of U.S. and NATO have dramatically stirred into action, and like a magnet, have gravitated towards the oil-bearing regions of north Africa and the Middle East in order to impose their order in those areas. Therefore, the wave of national liberation struggle in the Islamic world, which expresses the interests of the economic base of electrification in need of accessible energy resources, the U.S. and NATO unleash a policy of imposing unaffordable prices for "black gold". That is, if in fact this struggle tends to demand lower prices for gasoline and natural gas, which in the long term applies to the whole energy sector, this demand finds confirmation in low electricity tariffs. Moreso, this access applies to the entire energy transmission of a developing country, and ensures stability at the enterprises owned and run the national bourgeoisie. And then these revolutionary waves for affordable energy at the grassroots level, imperialism seeks to translate into an economic crisis, which can be created only due to additional printing of dollars in the U.S.. At this stage, the revolutionary forces are forced to either apply a policy of nationalization of enterprises, pointing them towards prices of their own existing "black gold", or the national economy without its own energy, has to go for a merger with foreign capital and, consequently, suffer a cataclysmic rise in inflation, caused by the work of the dollar printing press. The problems of such revolutions lie always in their duration, i.e. the ability to retain "the electrification of the entire country" to ensure national interests for as long as possible. The faster imperialism penetrates into the management of such economies of developing countries, the faster the flywheel begins to spiral up inflation, which raises a new wave of revolutions. And the same scenario is repeated, the foundations of which Marx outlined way back in the XIX century. But if, as in China, its own base of electrification has been created, able to withstand inflation imposed by imperialism, then the country can put forward its plans to increase GDP and development.
The difference of economic approaches towards the understanding of development, is that in place of monetary parity of gold, there arrived a new gold parity - the consumption of "black gold" (oil) in production. It is for this "black gold" that the modern-day class struggle is being carried out. However, in these conditions, imperialism unleashes its accountants and demands payments in dollars, rather than in the cost of energy. In this case, the leading U.S. economists impose their own pricing policies on all the rest of us. As a result of such pricing policies, imperialism itself establishes wages and living standards in all countries. Those countries which do not agree with this, fall under economic sanctions or embargos, balancing on the brink of military intervention by the U.S. and NATO.
China's political system can not be regarded as just a growing imperialist power. It should be judged as a power that has to to reckon with the established orders of imperialism on the world stage. In this case, the desire of CCP to create its own economic base is quite clearly demonstrated, which is based entirely on state energy, corresponding to policy of the yuan and its own agriculture. This gives grounds to see a significant part of the “electrification of the whole of China” in industrial potential. But the trouble is for the Chinese people and its leadership, is that the main source of energy for such electrification is coal. For the country itself has only reserves of coal on which long-term economic policy can be built. But this energy source is very time consuming and can not actively increase productivity. The buying of oil and gas on the world market is expensive and puts energy under constant price fluctuations. Fluctuations in prices do not allow electrification to become stable in developing countries. Therefore, in China one will see a doubling of the economy: on the one hand, "the electrification of the whole country”, and on the other, a game on the world market under the laws of imperialism. Actually, on the global market, one can only exist under the laws of imperialism, since by acting according to humane laws in front of "jaws" of the market, we resign ourselves to being eaten up.
The presentation by the CCP of some moral requirements for such an economic policy is all quite meaningless. Since the responsibility for the situation in China is carried by Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev and their surrounding "loyal Leninists." That Khrushchev, Brezhnev partocracy pushed the Chinese communists away from Soviet oil and later from gas at stable prices. And what was the reason? The reason was Stalin. If the Chinese comrades rejected Stalin, they would get their oil and gas. Otherwise, oil and gas would go to the Eastern European allies who had turned their backs on Stalin. And as it turned out, these allies had simultaneously rejected the electrification of their own countries. For example the closest associate of the USSR, Poland, stated a couple of years ago that it was not worried by the European debates about gas, because 95% of their own energy needs are met by using their own coal, and that says a lot. Where then, did the Soviet oil and gas flow to, if all these "Druzhba" pipelines and other "pipes" were built for the electrification of its closest allies? It turns out that the energy went further and into West only to return to Eastern Europe as payment in dollars for rejecting electrification.
With regard to the contradictions of China's economy, they are derived from the impact of the initial economic leap, as the revolutionary success of the country during the transition to socialism was compensated by the industrial breakthrough reached with the assistance of the Soviet Union and Stalin personally. On this leap, China gained its electrification, which was literally in its infancy. After the betrayal by "the loyal Leninists" of the Soviet Union, all subsequent economic breakthroughs initiated by the CCP did not give the desired results, because its own economic base of electrification remained at the 1950-s level. Not having any significant oil and gas reserves, China's next economic breakthrough could be realized only on the reforms of Deng Xiaoping's "socialism with Chinese characteristics." The basis of these "characteristics" was simply the hiring out the Chinese labour force for recruitment by imperialism. At the same time, the capacity of Chinese coal-fired power stations (something similar to early Soviet electrification – GOELPO) began to increase. And under this consumption of coal at their own power station plants, their own currency base - the yuan took shape. Their own reformed agriculture fell under the yuan. Everything else was handed over under the custody of the dollar. What might have been the alternative to such a policy? The alternative could only have been the complete surrender of China to the mercy of imperialism. Surrender of the Latin American type, with a dictator of a Somoza or Pinochet type.
Then the logical question arises: what happened to those countries which have placed themselves at the mercy of imperialism?
The answer is contained in the examples of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both these states are leading exporters of oil and the leading apologists for Islam. And while these countries were compling with all demands of the U.S., the dollar was dictating all the conditions. But in 1979, Iran had the Islamic revolution which overthrew the pro-U.S. shah and established an Islamic regime, with national interests aimed at the realisation of energy reserves. At that time, Saudi Arabia, located in the Arabian Desert and known for its Mecca, as a place of worship of the prophet Muhammad, is doing everything to rescue the dollar, by increasing oil exports. This sparsely populated country, which uses a mainly foreign labour force and specialists in oil, though rescuing the struggling dollar, after Iran left the watchful eye of the U.S., it has been unable to provide reliable support for the dollar. There is a growing crisis. The opportunists brought the economy of the USSR to its knees before imperialism, and the energy resources from post-Soviet territory have rushed to rescue and support the dollar. And there still is not enough to prop up the dollar. In Iran, the Islamic revolution creates its own domestic energy, accelerating the construction of its own nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Oil prices are increasing. We are entering the world economic crisis of capitalism. But this crisis does not hurt countries such as China, India, Brazil, Argentina, etc. These countries are developing, they have found their own bases of electrification or reliable allies in the supply of energy. And the more large underdeveloped countries have their own bases of electrification, the less they need the mediation of the dollar and even may well do a substantial part of procurement with friendly countries without the dollar. Venezuela, Iran and other countries are such countries that are only just creating their own bases of electrification.
This example is similar to the occurrence in Soviet Russia in the electrification of the entire country, starting with the occurrence of concessions offered by the West. Then, Lenin warned of their size: "Concessions are not terrible if we give the concessionaires a few factories, keeping most of them for us, that’s nothing terrible. Of course, utterly ridiculous it would be if the Soviet government handed out a big part of what belongs to it to concession: then that would not be a concession, but a return to capitalism." (MSS, t.32, pp. 275). And since the bulk of the industrial potential of countries such as China, India, Brazil and others, present their own resources handed over together with the workforce as a concession to imperialism, then there can be no talk about an independent economic policy of the developing world. They follow a policy of economic requirements of capitalism. However, the output of China in second place in the world in GDP, suggests a planning policy by the governing structures of the CPC, which can be carried out only on the basis of their own electrification. Therefore there is respect in the CPC for Stalin's role in history, revealed not only in the respect of traditions, but also expressed as a direct continuation of the cause of Stalin in the economy. Hence it is not random attacks by the U.S. against the policy of the Yuan, which has stood on guard over electrification of the whole of China. Suffice to say that those developing countries that have a relative base of electrification, do not fall under the bastion of imperialist bellicose statements. Therefore, at this stage of development of China, all will depend on what benefits the proletariat will receive from the development of electrification and whether it can form itself into an independent working class?
Oddly enough, but here the question arises. And what is more important in the struggle against imperialism: to build socialism or build ones own base of electrification?
The answer is quite simple. Without its own base of electrification, not one socialism will be able to stand the test of time. Because you can only build communism, the road to which lies via the economic base of electrification. For communism is a rejection of the monetary system, in the place of which the consumption of "black gold" grow for the manufacture of tools of labour and commodities for consumption. From which the economic base serves as a record keeper of electrification in the national economy, regardless of whether professionals working in it want this or not. In this, the base of electrification passes the reins of power in the accounting system to the working class, as the closest to the cost accounting of energy invested in manufacturing turnover. And it is the working class, as Lenin said, "each parish, each workshop” is able to calculate the costs of "black gold" for their small turnover. And if the working class is going to badly calculate the consumption of "black gold", as happened in the USSR, then they will pass through another re-education in the practices of capitalism, so that afterwards, they will be be able to calculate correctly. Therefore, the development of the historical process moves not so much according to what state we have built, whether a socialist or capitalist state, but moves according to whether the monetary system retreats for calculation in energy consumption. Socialism, of course, is well able to help the development of the base of electrification. But the example of successful development in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries, which have learned to consider the costs for energy, during the world economic crisis of capitalism, allowed them not to feel this crisis, at that same time as the leading imperialist countries are mired up to their eyes in an economic bog.
And the problem of the world market crops up again, which very cleverly distributes the results of the global division of labour, allowing the imperialist powers to lead a comfortable life, and leaving the developing world, mostly in poverty. Accordingly, Lenin's conclusion comes to mind regarding this problem: "Using a currency such as gold, you should not forget that there is no free market, that the entire market or almost entire market is occupied by syndicates, cartels and trusts that manage their imperialist profits, and items of supply are given the workers only for their own businesses and not for others, because the old capitalism - in the sense of the free-market – is no longer with us. "(t.32. s.283-284). Therefore, the proletarian leader proposed the economic base of electrification, as opposed to the global market of imperialism. Since in practice, Leninist electrification, due to prices on energy resources, made it possible to monitor turnover of agricultural production, moving away from the arbitrariness of the world market of imperialism, opposing its own monetary unit, which also participates in the turnover on a par with the expended energy.
To understand how and why opposition was growing between the world market and local turnover, one should more carefully consider the question: why was the colonial policy of imperialism replaced by the policy of concessions, and now currency wars are raging?
Currency wars as a continuation of the colonial policy of imperialism.
The Great French Revolution did not have time to properly consolidate the capitalist system in Paris, before her longing to seize the territories of others, already captured mostly by the British. Greed for colonial policy ruined many of the French and exposed the policy of England, which was won by the bourgeoisie closely within the British Isles, and she quietly plundered all the overseas colonies. The First World War further exposed the imperialist desire of syndicates and cartels to the division of the world and the new seizure of foreign territories. At the same time, maintaining colonial armies was expensive. And carrying on wars for colonies ended in failure for some of the leading imperialist powers. Also, the imperialists began to apply the policy of concessions when a weak state donated a portion of their resources to concession (ie, rebate) to some imperialist conglomerate. And this international conglomerate, using the in-country legislation, continued its colonial policies already within the officially sanctioned legal framework. This eliminates the expense of the imperialists to maintain their armies, but the host country pays a tax. Accordingly, the appetites of the leading monopolies in such plunder of the weaker nations will only increase. Here is the stage of the policy of concessions that Lenin saw that instead of the national liberation struggle of the colonies there is a "war of concessions with capitalist foundations”.
Looking ahead, we can say that the emergence of fascist regimes in the camp of imperialism and in the dependent states, was dictated by the same laws of economics in colonial politics. Fascism with its pathological cruelty tried to realize itself on the fear of weak opponents and to ensure power and the needed resources. Only the motives of national liberation from economic bondage has always prevailed. Therefore, colonialism, and its derivative in the form of fascism as an instrument of imperialist policy, had to go depart everywhere from the political arena.
However, in the early twentieth century, the young Soviet republic became the political arena for the "war concessions with capitalist foundations”. And Leninist electrification became the tool in the fight against the aggressive pressure of the global steel market. It was the economic basis of electrification in Soviet Russia that immediately led to two trends in the communist movement. The first was the "Left" deviation and identified with the name of Leon Trotsky, calling only for the military development of the revolution. The second trend, was the “Right” deviation, its leader Bukharin, called for a truce with bourgeois reformism and was directly drawn towards capitalism. And very soon the similarity of these two party deviations was discovered, or afterwards as the delegates of Stalinist Party congresses themselves joked: "If you go "left"- you will arrive on the right." But what united them was what Lenin called anarcho-syndicalism, "the true Makhnovshchina”. For anarcho-syndicalism combined the economic interests of the Trotskyists and Bukharinites. Gradually, anarcho-syndicalism became the leading policy of imperialism and a tool for self-collapse of electrification in less developed countries. Why did this happen?
Bourgeois governments of Western countries, including Russia in the present, tend to convince both its own population and the population of states dependent on them, that they live in the era of greatest prosperity, "democracy" and are required to span all economic thought of liberalism. Meanwhile, Western "democracy" means in translation, the power of the people, and the under-developed world was able to actually recognize the power of the "money bag", with all that ideological scope of liberalism in fact expressed in corrupt collaborationism.
Modern imperialists long ago ought to have erected a monument to Nestor Makhno as the ideologist and organizer of Western policy. At the base of the monument should be placed the Tsarist prisoners, realising the need to place the felon Makhno with political prisoners. Political literacy for the criminal world has given its results and the at one time leader of anarcho-syndicalism has learned a special result in economic education: it’s not important for whom to fight for, whether it be for the whites or reds, it is important that following the battle, sacks of money can be "grabbed up-via privatization". Strictly, the whole ideology of anarchy is placed on the bag with the money, "as the mother of order." Therefore, in 1921, it was no accident that Lenin happened to see in anarcho-syndicalism a force that was stronger than any throughout the military intervention, along with its own White Guards, who tried to win the civil war. And this force was distributed in the party ranks on the right and "left", uniting all in the attractive force of the money bag. For the Trotskyists, not to mention the Bukharinites quietly redeemed their "r-revolutionary' fervor for a quiet life in a large abundance, being provided by significant financial costs out of the pocket of the devastated Soviet republic. Of course, this ability of anarcho-syndicalists to pump money out of the socialist state, could not be missed by imperialism. And imperialism itself adopted this skill by the followers of Makhno: for the profits, "fight" for the whites or reds. All political principles of the followers of Makhno were sent to the dump, leaving on the horizon, only one dream in the form of an eternal craving for a bag of money. Although, of course, over time, the rough shape the money bag gave way to respectable suitcases or briefcases and sometimes, as appropriate, accompanied by even the use of a box of money fresh from under the copying machine. But in the end, the desire to grab just any offshore zone frantically stirred liberal thought. The "mother of order" does not like to waste time on trifles.
The two-faced policy of the West and the absence of any principles in politics have so bankrupted social thought of the leading capitalist countries that since the second half of the twentieth century in the place of politics, religion has increasingly made a return, more recently, squeezing "democratic" society further out in its remoteness from the state. And the most bizarre result of the return of religion into the political limelight has been the advancement of "revolutionary Islam" on guard over "electrification of the entire country." Imperialism, of course, has achieved much in its own rot and decay, having being able to engage in this "fascinating" lesson many "leftist" trends, now sunk into oblivion under the weight of Eurocommunism and opportunism. However, a considerable part of the world is taking over the objective laws of social development, spontaneously expressing what Lenin established in scientific and revolutionary theory. Objectively, for many developing countries, the economic base of electrification is becoming "closer to the body", and not thanks to the “good” intentions of liberal thought.
Under Stalin, the Soviet economic potential for the first time opened the door, which by the way Lenin's electrification paved the way for the destruction of money. With it, profits from turnover in large part were transfered into lower prices, thereby declaring the intention of the monetary system to tend to zero and pass control over the costs to the economic base of the country's energy consumption. Of course, such control over energy resources could be carred out en masse only by the working class, led by the advanced revolutionary vanguard. Therefore, the main opponent of imperialism was precisely the Leninist-Stalinist Party of the Soviet Union which carried on a clear class policy. And Khrushchev, regardless of whether he wanted it or not, was a direct protege of imperialism, carried out the rescue of the monetary system of capitalism.
However, the global market of imperialism will die at such a speed as the policy of success in increasing the profits from leading monopolies. And they have one problem: their lack of control over the circulation of goods. In fact in the world market, stringent regulation of goods and a system of prohibitions, and even direct blockade of some states are established to ensure their prices for raw materials by leading imperialist conglomerates. From this there is the an overabundance of food at one pole and starvation of millions on the other. And the deaths of millions of people means nothing, compared to the ability to control the world by establishing their own prices and the possibility of distributing goods. The dollar here serves as a screen behind which the policy of divide and conquer is pursued. But if things take a nasty turn, then the dollar can be charged as the culprit, so that throwing it at another deal, even more profit can be gained.
The modern world is not just the current West, the oracles of which fill television space across the world and carry to the masses under the ideas of liberalism, the economic policies of the casino. For its the casino owners who always seem to win. Otherwise, the casino would not have taken in the second half of the twentieth century a leading position in the capitalist economy. But 5 / 6 of the modern world still draws attention to the principles of conduct, morality, which is inherited from previous generations. And this world seeks to articulate its interests not through the world market, but through its own turnover, controlled by the economic base of electrification. Of course, this electrification is expressed spontaneously. But the practice of conducting their own monetary units experiencing the oppression of pressure of leading currencies of imperialism assumes this. This is for the underdeveloped countries the only way out, providing an ever-visible position of their own independent existence, remaining with policies on the basis of planning their own electrification, beyond which there is no salvation. That is why modern China will be forced to tighten the policy of "electrification of the entire country”, reaching the second position in the world. And that means leadership on the economic basis of electrification, which must be maintained.
How does imperialism carry out modern neo-colonialist policies?
Modern neo-colonialist policies of imperialism are carried out on two fronts. On the one hand, currency revolutions are being carried out against weak countries, that are implemented by modern rentiers of the world market by sales of mainly dollars, with increased rate of some monetary units in the underdeveloped world. Owners of an undeveloped currency need dollars, because they will have to buy energy at the same world market, so they buy them. But then, when the local currency of a developing country falls sharply, investors in the world market quickly buy up commodities at a reduced price, which will then be sold at an inflated dollar price at home. Outwardly, these speculations are almost invisible, as they are sometimes carried out in fractions of percent in currency fluctuations, but the sums injected into circulation should always exceed one million dollars. Otherwise, those fractions of a percent, the difference in exchange rates, under which the vast amount of currency is thrown in from some of the leading capitalist countries, will not bring a tangible profit in the currency wars. Such a policy of carrying on currency wars prevents local currencies stabilizing, so that weak states can not establish their own accounting of energy consumption and consequently, can not establish their own economic base of electrification.
On the other hand, the grabbing up of fixed assets of enterprises in underdeveloped countries takes place at the expense of the money supply of leading imperialist conglomerates. Here the game is played at the level of balancing profits and outgoing costs of enterprises accounted for on the world market. And it is here that, on their own sweat, there toil the billionaires. The main fight is for energy, energy branches, metals (“blue chips”). The aircraft and defence industry are closed subjects for the world market, and with them everything is decided "under the carpet." Enterprises of the “second plan” that are unrelated to the "blue chips" are accounted for on the world market only due to their increased prices that could affect the balance of power in economic battles. Everything else is left to the mercy of the rentier, who manages to earn good money in the currency wars. In the space of energy resources are developed the major economic wars, turning into real military action. For the sale of energy resources, especially the most essential, oil, is carried out in dollars, allowing the leading imperialist country –the United States – to consider themselves the pantry of "black gold" that allows banking transactions on the global market. Any underdeveloped country, before you buy the same oil, is forced to first buy dollars through the sale of their goods, which, of course, speculators will buy at the lower exchange rate of the underdeveloped country. In the U.S. those dollars are just printed and exchanged for goods to those who would seek to buy oil. Other leading capitalist countries support the U.S. in the work of the printing press to produce dollars, as they are interested in the functioning of one currency for the purchase of energy resources. And the U.S. will share profits with them by increasing appreciation of the euro by 30 - 35% against the dollar. And countries such as Russia's own rate of the rouble against the dollar, they can lower the rate by thirty times. As a result, energy-rich Russia will be forced to sell petrol to its own population at five times the price than in other oil rich developing countries, to pay the permanent penalty for its own capitalism to Uncle Sam. And Uncle Sam with its own bell tower of the world market will provide credit only to those "blue chips" in Russia, who support the stability of the dollar policy. And exactly the same policies of the world market are carried on in respect of other weak states. However, on an economic basis saturated by the dollar, in the leading capitalist countries, nothing but crises will grow.
In both cases, the economic policy of the dollar pursues a single goal: to achieve instability in the local monetary system in a developing country and force its economy to seek assistance from the imperialist monopoly leading the business. Since a leading monopolist is interested in the economy of an dependent country existing in this condition for as long as possible, in which there is a serf at the service of his master, then in the charge of such "human rights" is both NATO and the forces of reactionary feudalism.
Therefore, to ensure some semblance of development on the fake dollar note and, thus, prolong the agony of modern imperialism, in the second half of the twentieth century, the unscrupulous policy of "human rights" was built. Because behind "human rights", the rights of the dollar always grow, the possibility which is problematic and is carried out on the verge of balancing between "left" and right-wing political sentiments. In this sense, a justifiable measure on part of the U.S., is the forming in the Muslim world of the ultra-Islamic organization al-Qaeda aiming at running ahead of the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is reminiscent of ultra-Trotskyism in Russia, trying, by forcing the waves of world revolution, to solve the problem of world domination of Zionism. Only these days, the current followers of bin Laden are trying to accommodate Islamic national revolutions against the U.S. policy in favour of Saudi Arabia policy fully standing on guard in the economic interests of the United States and Israel. Because only the preservation by the imperialists of a feudal relic, like Saudi Arabia, performing the role of "mother of order" in the Islamic world and which is simultaneously the leading country for the sale of oil, allows the U.S. to maintain its position of a benefactor of Islam and implement the dictatorial policies of the global market. Policies swollen by ambiguous predictions for the future and burst financial bubbles in the present.
Nevertheless, all dictatorial regimes come and go, but Lenin's electrification remains. And no matter how the oracles of capitalism distort Lenin's electrification, it always remains the sole life-giving source of the economy, from which the poor countries are able to quench their thirst and begin development. All underdeveloped countries, with rare exceptions, aim towards gaining and increasing their own turnover, and from turnover, rid themselves from the dictatorship of imperialism. And in this way, they will create the electrification of their own countries and move away from the dictatorship of the dollar and tyranny of the global market.
And although the podium model of imperialism demonstrates to the whole community the imperturbable manner of setting up on the table of the "global casino" of "blue chips", it cannot not hide from public opinion the rotting smell of parasitic paper dollars behind the chips. And since beyond the gaming table of the "global casino", parades and public demonstrations with different sexual orientations try to express a clear vision of the future better than the others, then their capacity to bear fruit wipes out the ability of capitalism itself to live and build. Yes, the modern gravedigger of capitalism lies in the Asian expanse and is looking quite ripe for this mission, with convincing support for its own principles of conduct and traditions of understanding.
Energy disaster in Japan: Causes and Consequences.
While the negative effects of a cold and snowy winter in Russia alternated every possible cut-offs, threatening to transform into a chain reaction for disabling the country’s main life support systems, there were no signs of storms in other regions of the world. As other regions of the world are not so cold and have much less snow fall, then causes of large-scale disasters occur much less. But a strong earthquake overtook Japan, accompanied in such cases, by the associated tsunami. And thus, until more recently, the second largest economy in the world, rolled into a ditch. In the centre of the disaster and destroyed, was Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. The nature of the accident at the plant largely repeats the events of the American nuclear power plant disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which took place in 1979. The difference is that at Three Mile Island, the misfortune befell on one reactor, but at the Fukushima-1, such fate hit four of six reactors. Also, in Japan after the earthquake, a few other nuclear reactors entered a state of emergency.
In the press, reports were leaked that the IAEA back in 2008 warned the government of Japan of the unstable state of Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant, and of an impending earthquake with devastating consequences. But the loudest of all to declare to themselves environmentalists are those following the U.S. authorities step by step, having for a long time cemented over every nuclear power plant construction. And at this stage of development of nuclear energy, a disappointing fact should be recognized: the service life of reactors used in the Fukushima-1, were so exhausted that they should have not only been cemented over in just Japan, but also in other regions of the world, including Russia.
Why is there a need to shut down and cover over these reactors? The reason is that nuclear reactors, as well as all sorts of generating capacities in conventional power, are designed for a lifespan of 25 years. Anyway, in the Soviet Union in such reactors a payback period of 12 years was established, which corresponded to the price of electricity and heat, and the period of operating the generating resources at 25 years. Further use in the work of such power is dangerous, because the growing fatigue properties and the metal losing its strength. In any case, more frequent accidents on heating pipelines and power outages demonstrate such wear and tear. The reactors at Fukushima-1, as evidenced by press reports, operated for about 40 years. That is, the equipment was worn to the limit. And when the tremors tested the Fukushima strength, this strength was insufficient. The Fukushima nuclear reactors began to collapse like a house of cards.
In these circumstances, the bourgeois media imposed on world public opinion an analysis of the type "who said what to whom." The Bolshevik opinion in this situation can only be one: lack of planning. Namely the lack of plans to replace their exhausted reactor resources, both in Japan and around the world, places humanity on the brink of disaster. For the resource of stability has been used up along with also a significant number of conventional thermal generators, which can fall apart and turn off the life support system of the population. And it would be absurd to choose a way of dying either from nuclear radiation or from the cold due to the shutdown of traditional thermal power stations, since both types of power generating equipment are is in a very worn out state. The only difference is that the people of warm climates do not face death from cold, so they justifiably express their emotions against a surge in nuclear power plants.
In analyzing the situation at the Japanese nuclear power plants, one also has to turn to history. This must be done to understand why all these powerful nuclear and thermal power plants were built during the first three decades after World War II. After that, there has been slump, then stagnation. The last two decades, energy has evolved mostly in the underdeveloped world, where there has been capital fed into, while the cost to the leading companies in the development of thermal and electrical energy of the leading capitalist countries, in dollar terms, has grown with incredible speed. As a result, the industrial race between socialism and capitalism started after World War II, forced the planning of the development of generating capacities. And although to capitalism it was distasteful to have to plan to develop its own industry, the imperialists had no other way of competing with the Stalinist model of economy in the USSR. This is one reason why the figure of Stalin became for the hosts of the leading conglomerates the most hated person, since he had forced them to engage in not extracting the highest profit, but forced them to plan development and that it was necessary to make investments in the economy that, were not, from a practical business point of view, justified. And also, the proletariat of developed capitalist countries at that time had considerably more respect for the Soviet working class, seeking in their own struggle, large wage increases and better working conditions. The situation changed with the coming to power in the USSR of the open anarcho-syndicalists, first, Khrushchev, then Brezhnev. As soon as the planning system in the Soviet Union collapsed and in place of the economic base of electrification, the monetary criteria for profit arrived (Kosygin reforms in 1965), this opened the prospects of managing the world economy through the dollar, which after 1945 became the main currency of the world market of capitalism for energy trade. The possibility of the U.S. to control via the dollar "black gold", allowed, in conditions of anarcho-syndicalism in the Soviet Union, to seize political domination in the world. Moreover, anarcho-syndicalism was a very useful political tool for maintaining the foundations of capitalism itself that imperialism had taken into service. In the 1970’s, the U.S. had already no need for advanced technologies in nuclear power, as nuclear power itself was no longer necessary. (On this subject, read the article "The impending economic collapse - a natural result of the capitalization of the economy of the USSR" on the website of the AUCPB (FB- Russian website vkpb.ru). Therefore, the U.S. began to mothball the construction of nuclear power plants both in the USA and abroad. Japan also finished up with their own obsolete nuclear power plants built by the U.S. during the cooling of competition between the two systems (capitalism-socialism) and has not engaged in their modernization. After the 1970’s, the building of nuclear power plants has declined sharply, and after Chernobyl, it has ceased, except for the underdeveloped world. What could the Japanese do under the circumstances of the earthquake of 2011? Simply shut down all the reactors, which had operated for over 25 years? But capitalism can not afford to stop the expensive equipment, which brings in huge profits. Who will finance the losses? It turns out that these nuclear plants were doomed to work until extraordinary circumstances forced them to shut down.
On the background of the disaster in Japan politicians in Germany sharply jumped into action, where the situation with deterioration of nuclear reactors is similar. Obviously, fear is forcing the Germans to shut down all their reactors which have been operating for over thirty years.
A most tense situation with nuclear energy has developed in France. There, more than 75% of all energy is produced from nuclear power. Those Frenchmen are proud of. But it is very unlikely that there exists a planning system and or expanded reproduction of nuclear power plants. The bourgeois model of economy needs profit and not reliability of energy equipment. Therefore, in the near future we should expect to see a sharp increase in interest from the media towards the French network of nuclear power, and we can gather some information regarding the reproduction of nuclear reactors in one of the leading capitalist countries.
As for Russia, here all traditional power generation is in another “GOELRO-2” plan of Chubais. On paper, the planning is finished, but in practice, there is no money for construction. A similar plan for the commissioning of new plants was announced in Russia several years ago, but with the financing – everything as usual with Chubais in GOELRO-2 (no money for it). Therefore, for new Russian nuclear reactors, there are projects under construction in the developing world, but the construction projects in Chubais’s own home country, Russia, have been as usual, either mothballed or gone into stagnation.
We may have got the impression that the tragedy in Japan would encourage the construction of modern nuclear power plants and it would quickly get underway. But there are no grounds for this forecast to come to life. Firstly, the U.S. has long ceased all nuclear plant construction and will be unable to reach the same level of development of new reactors for at least the next decade. In addition, the U.S. already does not have the personnel that are capable of at least the previous level of technology to build new nuclear power plants. Secondly, Russia's potential for nuclear plant reproduction is too outdated, there is no growth in capacity, and the only thing enhanced, is the safety factor in case of emergency. However, these reactors of the 1970’s are not able to break onto projected construction sites. Thirdly, France, saturated by nuclear plants, after Fukushima-1, is unlikely to make up for its own outages and rejuvenate the stagnant nuclear power industry. The most realistic forecast of what the next decade has to offer, in one way or another, is whether or not nuclear power plants should be build in the first place, and if built, what kind of plants should be built and to what standards ... There are always more questions in these situations than there are answers. But during this decade, the remaining nuclear power plants work the resources in forty years, since the folding up of nuclear power plant construction began after the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. In any case, nuclear reactors with three decades of life will not be shutdown in the meantime, and it would be impossible, because their shutdown would bring about an energy catastrophe. It turns out that on the political wave of anarcho-syndicalism, Europeans and North Americans turned out hostages to the global market.
And now we come to the central question: WHAT does planning in the field of energy sector actually mean?
Planning in the energy sector means, in essence, life or death, because without planning, the energy sector can not exist. Without energy, the developed world cannot live.
Therefore, it is worth turning to the experience of the Soviet Union during the period of industrialization in order to understand how to implement this planning, not for money, but for energy transmitters. And because the experience of planning starts from Lenin's plan for electrification (GOELPO), it is necessary to look at all the thermal power stations generated by this plan. What do we then see? We will see a number of second and even third phases of construction of power plants. You can also see that each subsequent phase of construction in the energy sector far exceeded the volume of previously generated power. That is, every power plant built was projectedly and practically paid off in 12 years, then earning its own expanded reproduction and beginning to build itself up and grow. In this case, further construction was calculated so that after 25 years of work of the original power capacity input, a new power capacity could be introduced, much more superior to its predecessors. This required an increase in the rate of productivity in the energy sector and rejuvenation of production itself. Nuclear energy began to develop on these principles. And while these rules of planning electrification were adhered to, the growth of the country’s industrial component was impressive, which was accompanied by an increase in the living standards for the vast majority of the population. The turnover of energy resources in the economic base of electrification was the guarantee of success, which dropped the cost of fuel for the production per unit of output of industry and agriculture.
Maybe there are still people who believe that Khrushchev began criticizing "Stalin's personality cult," to pursue a good cause ... In fact, Khrushchev fought for the monetary policy of the U.S. dollar, thereby undermining the Leninist policy of electrification and put into practice by Stalin. However, we must recognize that the scope of Khrushchev, like that of Brezhnev who succeeded him, did not extend beyond the ideology of Makhno. For that, of course, the then-members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CC CPSU) took responsibility. Therefore the desire of the anarcho-syndicalists for a simple sack of money was more important than the desire to continue the policy of moving away from money, begun by Lenin by moving towards communism through the economic base of electrification. This brings to mind the false attempt to leap into communism by 1980 –Khrushchev-style. Waving his fists, and almost falling off the podium, Khrushchev announced his wording, "communism - this is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country, plus chemicalization of the national economy" ... Does anyone know what this Makhnovite meant, when he intended to build communism on the basis of "chemicalization of the national economy”? Obviously, it was that bomb that blew up Leninist electrification and behind the smokescreen of the explosion made it possible to start moving to that bag, with money ...
But now, after the disaster in Japan, there is every reason to say "chemicalization of the national economy" in the entire capitalist world. The imperialists with the help of the "Khrushchevites” sowed the wind in the Soviet Union, but are now reaping the storm at home. They should not have spat into the well of the Leninist electrification. Since from of this well, now the world will have to satisfy its economic thirst. And presumably to warm up to Uncle Sam, we may soon have to burn bundles of dollars, since the day of ending of trading energy in dollars is not far off.
As a conclusion.
The contemporary developing world has therefore ceased to be simply the Third World, since it has embarked on a policy of economic base of electrification and begun to truly develop. But imperialism continues to celebrate the success of the collapse of the economic policies of the Soviet Union. In this, the "wise" uncles of the dollar policy never think that the collapse of Leninist electrification in the camp of socialism, they have destroyed their own base of electrification and doomed themselves to a recession. As a result, the developing world is forced spontaneously to save itself from imperialist tyranny, to develop its own bases of electrification.
Of course, Western politicians more typically pull down everything that is created in the underdeveloped world, without feeling remorse, going to direct aggression by the collapse of weak electrification. Key strikes are inflicted on socialist economies, DPRK and Cuba. They are heading towards oil-rich Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and others. It is no accident that big money, noted in the press, is being thrown by the imperialists into the wave of "colour" Arab revolutions. What is the West is seeking through the "colour revolutions" in the Arab world? The West seeks to expand the number of allies of Saudi Arabia in the Arab world and thus change the balance of power in this oil-rich region in its favour. Attempts by the same forces to place Islamic republics of the Caucasus in Russia under the control of Saudi Arabia is no accident. Attempts by the Wahhabis of Saudi sheikhs to place under the control of Al Qaeda the entire Islamic world, through well-organized terrorism, is no accident. Accordingly, the pious "democratic" liberalism of the West with great artistry uses the theatre of Batko Makhno "to fight terrorism and tyranny."
What role does this theatre of the West play in the struggle for "human rights"? This theatre clears the field for dollar rights, leading the rights of Arabs and Muslims under the rule of feudal monarchs, such as Saudi Arabia. Although in such a situation, the artistic image of the Western politician "indignant and deeply concerned" by the signs of tyranny in Saudi Arabia, there is no other way out for the West! For the other option is Leninist electrification. And what in this situation will the Western politician choose for "human rights" in the Islamic world? The Western politician, they say, having clenched his will into a fist, with great reservations and with a mass of various amendments to a resolution, will point out the feudal version of the Saudi monarch to adopt. And it would be absurd if that same Western politician agreed on the need to revive the economy of the West, dying in crisis, by using the experience in planning of electrification under Stalin. The majority of these politicians had spent almost their entire lives working towards the collapse of the Stalin model of economic base.
The accident at Three Mile Island, at Chernobyl and at the Fukushima-1 has put at stake not just the question as to whether or not nuclear power will survive in general. They have put at stake the question of the future of all humanity. This applies, above all, to the elimination of the economic base of the best means of increasing labour productivity through the use of peaceful nuclear energy. By renouncing nuclear reactors, humankind abandons the most advanced generation capacity, which conventional generating power simply can not make up for. In addition, after the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear power was not only not saved, but it was deliberately destroyed. And carried to an extreme degree of wear, it could not express itself any differently than in the disaster at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan.
What once again do our sugar daddies offer us as an alternative to nuclear power plants?
We have traditionally been offered renewable energy sources instead of nuclear power. Thus recently, somewhere a year and a half ago, a construction project of a power plant run on solar energy in the African desert has already been proposed, which will then going transfer energy to Europe. When the costs were calculated, the tears flowed. The project was elementary quackery. Now allusions are made toward the use of wind energy. Although this is not new, it is quite a development of power equipment. Only these "windmills" are also very expensive, and produce very little energy. They won’t feed large industry. Therefore, they put "windmills" in remote places where conventional power lines are expensive and the small generating capacity involved can be covered at the expense of the wind turbine. In addition, discussions about renewable energy sources are not carried out by professional energy experts alone, but also by people from the cash registers, accustomed to lending money at high interest. For them, the main thing "crowed" about is also, if they do not borrow money at high interest, don’t even let them get off the ground.
And what can imperialism present us with as an alternative to nuclear power? With what are these uncles with dollars going to save us from further falls in production? In this respect, oddly enough, but other than the alternative of the "deeply respected" monarchy of Saudi Arabia, sitting on the oil "pipeline", for these owners of dollars, there is no alternative. In the same direction, the modern "colour" revolutions in the Arab world are being carried out. And in this respect, the Russian government mimics them, focusing on the economic effect of the oil "pipeline". But then another question arises: how is the morality of the wahhabiing feudal sheikh better than the morality of Hitler's fascism?
Under these conditions, for modern China becomes a matter of honour to respond to this challenge. Only China, now in second place is able to undertake development projects of nuclear reactors and start to work on construction of nuclear power. This is needed most of all by the Chinese economy, which can no long operate on its own existing coal-fired energy resources. And the solution to the issue of developing nuclear power will become a bid for leadership in the world. In addition, scientific thought on the post-Soviet territory, in terms of nuclear power stations, is dragging out a miserable existence and is ready to earn a bit extra. And since the Chinese Communist Party has not abandoned the ideology of Stalin, they need to implement Stalin's economic base of electrification, with the expectation of predictable results for improved productivity.
Either planning and the economic base of the electrification will destroy the monetary system and cross over to calculating the costs for energy, or the monetary system will destroy humanity itself. There is no other option.
Vladimir Ryabov
Member of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
(CC AUCPB)
Further reading on the Chinese economy:
"Modern China" by A.A. Mayevsky member of the CC AUCPB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment