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.