The Truth of Efforts Towards Climate Change

Dear Colleagues,

A few weeks ago, I learned that China had spent fifty-one and a half billion dollars in the year 2010 to re-organize their power supply to reduce CO2 emissions.  Apparently, this is a continuous program and has become a part of the national budget.  This, of course, puts China in the top position of countries that are, in fact, making some effort to deal with climate change.

In the issue of Beijing Review of December 9th, there is an article “Taking Responsibility for Climate Change” that analyzes the Cancun Conference, which could not yet form an international agreement and includes China’s contribution and decision.  Again, I believe that this information should be broadly circulated to counter the anti-China propaganda.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Taking Responsibility for Climate Change” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-12/07/content_317340.htm

The Difference Between The Economic Structures Of China And The US

Dear colleagues,

There are discussions and negotiations going on between the US and China as a result of the US superpower turning on the military developments on both sides, even though China, in its planned economy, has maintained a purely defensive budget to protect its territory and now appears to be expanding its defenses to include the China Seas.  This has been provoked by free movements of military naval ships in the waters, which includes getting Vietnam to allow all ships to stop in their ports.

The development of a bi-polar world in this century is inevitable because of the rise of China as an economic power and not in the direction of emulating superpower, which includes massive military arms and aggression.  China never sent a soldier out of its country in five thousand years (with two weeks of exception in 1957 which were withdrawn under the direction of the UN).  The main difference between the two countries lies in their economic structuring.  In the United States, it all depends on investments based upon profitability for individual capitalist enterprises.  On the other hand, in China, the economic development of the country is based upon a national plan, in 5-year divisions, and overrides all investments and social expenditures.  These really are two kinds of economies.  One, in fact, has made the military a major factor in its own productivity while neglecting industrial development for its citizens.  In China, it is quite the opposite and will continue to be that way in the hopes that the current conference that is taking place, which was projected by the April 2nd, 2010 annual budget of the Pentagon, will be harnessed and bring sensibility and diplomacy to US-China relations, notwithstanding national differences.

The President of China is, at this moment, in conference with President Obama (we believe in order to develop diplomatic arrangements to deal with economic differences and avoid military conflict).  In this regard, we have just received the Beijing Review, which contains two articles that will clearly introduce you to China’s economic plans.  The subjects are “Mapping A Steady Course” and “A New Way To Trade”.  We are sending you copies and would appreciate you comments.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “A New Way To Trade” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/business/txt/2010-12/17/content_319913.htm

Click HERE to view “Mapping A Steady Course” at  http://www.bjreview.com.cn/Cover_Story_Series/2010-12/20/content_321756.htm

The Emerging Difference Between US Superpower and China’s Economic Power In A Bipolar World

Dear Colleagues,

We all know that the relationship between China and the US is key to the development of a bipolar economic world system in the 21st century and that the US and China are the main centers of the opposing poles.  Historically, the US, as an economic superpower, has dominated world development.  China, in the last thirty years, has demonstrated a rate of economic growth never achieved by a capitalist country, even though it remains two-thirds underdeveloped.

The difference is not one of “superpowership”.  A superpower is both economic and military. In their domestic and foreign policies, the US and China differ.  The US has been in two major world wars, three major Asian wars, and is in the process of developing a military alliance in the Southeast Pacific and China Sea region whereas China is concentrating on economic relations and on boosting economic cooperation to the benefit of developing countries as well as the Western capitalist countries in Europe.  China has joined with Brazil, Russia, and India in an organization called BRIC for friendly and economic association.  The Premier of China has visited the European nations recently and last week was in India (following President Obama’s visit a few weeks ago).

As for the Korean situation, the United States has a military alliance with South Korea.  Furthermore, the real difference between North and South Korea, which is being avoided by South Korea and the US, is the settling of the boundary between North and South, which is the cause of the tensions since the 1950s (particularly the islands in the undecided border areas between South and North).  No doubt North Korea has been influenced by China not to react to the military maneuvers as we learned from the press this week.

The difference between the US and China’s foreign policy are the military alliances and the program of the US pentagon, which appears to be usurping the primacy of presidential control of foreign policy.  China’s approach is not one of a developing superpower since there is no threat of military occupation or confrontation.  It is a historic character of China for over thousands of years.  It therefore functions in international relations without a military threat.  A good example of their foreign policy techniques can be found in an article on Eurasian exchanges from the Beijing Review of late October which we attach.  We welcome exchanges on the subject since we are planning an extended piece on the question of superpower and US and China foreign policies.  We always appreciate your comments and are particularly interested in developing understanding of the difference between the two poles.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Eurasian Exchanges” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2010-10/18/content_304357.htm

 

The Trouble With Asking China to Act Like the US: Why China Says No

Dear Colleagues,

For those of you who do not have access to the weekend New York Times, we want to call your attention to an interesting, fairly well-balanced approach to understanding the relationship between China and the US in these times when the US is creating confrontations with dangerous possibilities of an anti-China military alliance on top of the pressures for economic revaluations of currency (which has been rejected by most countries).  There is one section that indicates the position of the right-wing Republicans, which is an indication of the military direction of dealing with China.  Unfortunately, North Korea is not making it easy, but we hope that China can restrain them from military provocations.

Would like to have your opinions.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

Click HERE to view “Asking China To Act Like The US” at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/weekinreview/28cooper.html?_r=1

Sharing Responses

Dear Colleagues,

We received two poetic responses to our recent e-mails: one on dealing with China’s association with ASEAN nations and the other on the finance capital posting with Sam Webb.  They are so beautifully expressed that I wish to share them with you.  They read like unfolding history in poetic cadence.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

—–Original Message—–

From: sxxxxxxxx@aol.com
To: sjgluck@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 22, 2010 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: China’s Positive Relations: The Association of SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Professor,

It’s intersting. The US has been shouting for weeks that China is actively devaluing its currency without offering a shred of evience to substantiate this claim while, at the very same time, we’re printing dollars faster and faster. It’s the blatant hypocrisy which is destroying our nation from within. China didn’t do this to us. WE did this to ourselves. The other nations continue to develop meaningful multilateral agreements. China is quickly gaining the trust of the developing world. We are nowhere to be found in these deliberations. We are like a dog howling at the moon. No one any longer cares what we do or say. America has backed itself into a corner of growing irrelevance. The future will go to the intelligent and productive, not the well-armed. The ash heap of histoy beckons. How long will it be before we’re officially declared defunct as the world’s greatest deadbeat?

Franklin L. Johnson

—–Original Message—–

From: Max Armand <mxxxxxxxx@live.com>
To: sjgluck@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 3:03 am
Subject: RE: A Welcome Voice From The Left

Mr. Gluck,

I would highly suggest that you completely remove the Obama millstone from around your neck. Any attachment to him will only retard any efforts toward radical social change. Any mass movement that forms against the Establishment will most certainly have to be against the Presidency itself and thus against Obama. And though I have become quite skeptical of those who wave the banner of “democracy”, the majority of people feel a deep dissatisfaction with the current dominant form of social organization. The ruling classes emit cold sweats at the thought of all those persons who yet to be shaken to consciousness.

Obama’s attempts to work with the Right do not surprise me at all. While protecting himself from physical harm may also be on his mind, the main form of “self-protection” that Obama engages in is the protection of his own class, the beneficiaries of hierarchical Power.

As for my “tearing down” of the CPUSA, I must confess that I thought I was actually quite gentle with them. But to quote a wise man: “Criticism dealing with this content is criticism in a hand-to-hand fight, and in such a fight the point is not whether the opponent is a noble, equal, interesting opponent, the point is to strike him.” Whatever the CPUSA may have done in the past, we know that they are now only one of many pseudo-revolutionary organizations presented to consumers by capitalist society as tolerated outlets for their dissidence and dissatisfaction with the status quo. They are the alcohol of the masses.

Now, of course there are differences between Democrats and Republicans which cannot simply be dismissed. But the pseudo-opposition between the two major parties only serves to better obscure a real, hidden unity between them. As I have said before in a message to you, the liberals have shown themselves to be better defenders of Capital and the State than the conservatives. Voting for a progressive Democrat may make life more tolerable in the short-term, but the goal of anyone who desires the abolition of modern bourgeois society should be to make life more joyous in the long-term.

Regards,

Max Armand

China’s Positive Relations: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Dear Colleagues,

Last year, an organization called BRIC was formed which is a group combining Brazil, Russia, India, and China in an arrangement for consultation and development in a cooperative way amongst themselves and vis-à-vis developing countries since they are the most developed (other than the Western world).  It is an expression of the development of a bi-polar economic world that is characteristic of 21st century changes in economic relations and a challenge to Western domination, in particular the USA.

Only last week, Obama was in India.  Why?  To our dismay, he was representing US finance capital.  Our foreign policy is being run by the Pentagon also under the aegis of financial capital (they are the ones that have gotten the world into an economic mess).  His mission is obviously to induce India to work with the USA rather than with BRIC.  This means finance capital investments and a strongly capitalist development of India with this foreign capital.  Perhaps, some objective is to build India more rapidly than China as a competitor.  This possibility is like blowing in the wind.  Simply, if India goes along with US finance capital, it will still be on the basis of individual capital investments in particular industries rather than a planned national development of India’s total economy for the benefit of its own people.  China, on the other hand, will continue its economic development on the basis of national planning within which each individual industrial enterprise must fit its program into the national objectives for which they set goals every five years.  In fact, China now, being the second most productive nation in the world, is expected to reach the production level of the USA variably within fifteen to thirty years.  Even that is not the achievement that China will be building simply because, were they to seek the national level of the USA (the number one), they will not be able to develop a standard of living for the country as a whole anywhere near what we have achieved (but is being diminished) since they have a population four times the USA.

We are witnessing capitalist gasps within a changing world in which developing countries are moving forward, freeing themselves from the privatization mania of US finance capital.  We now see many of the developing countries moving into new social forms.

The big danger is that US foreign policy is turning towards military alliances aimed at China.  We have seen some evidences of it.  Not only is the military threat developing but also the economic currency war is being pushed by the USA with little support even from other capitalist countries.  The big danger in the world today is the US creating a military situation with China.  Note that, from the Chinese, there has not been a single move or a single threat in response to the pressures from the USA that have been accelerating in the last few months.  The IMF turned down the US proposal on currency reform.  G20 refused to discuss it, and capitalist countries opposed it.  In the meantime, over the past few weeks, a new development has taken place emanating from China, highly peaceful from a monetary point of view.  They are developing a gold market, which has no doubt an objective of creating international currency valuation on gold as the basic valuation.  Someone will say this is dangerous because gold is overvalued.  So what? That is not new.  It will fluctuate, but it is solid and has international value where currencies must be keyed to it, and it can act as a stabilizing factor in trade and international investment on a peaceful basis.  I am introducing two articles from the latest edition of the Beijing Review. These two articles deal with the practical partnerships that China has been developing with ASEAN countries and the region.  It is beneficial to all and certainly an example of peaceful cooperation and development.  While I am not sending anything on China’s relation with Africa at this time (which I will in the future), its involvement in Africa will turn it to industrialized modernization for the people of that continent and completely free it from the harness and reverberations of colonialism.  Also, note the independent economic development of Latin American countries – independent of US finance capital domination.  The world is moving on two axes, and we should, in our own country, start fighting for change, prevent the impoverishment of the working people in this country, demand stopping the wars, use the money to build up industry, help them create jobs, and invest in high tech,  These are the only ways they will turn around this particular economic crisis, which will develop into a deep depression if they do not do it. We had better start shouting.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “A Practical Partnership” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-11/09/content_310359.htm

Click HERE to view “Uninterrupted Progress” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-11/09/content_310361.htm

The US Currency War Against China

Dear colleagues,

As you are probably aware, the US failed to get the IMF to condemn China on their dealing with the value of their currency.  In fact, George Soros, an American finance capitalist, sided with the Chinese.  The IMF therefore did not deal with the question and recommended that it be taken up by the G20 meeting (twenty industrialized countries) in November.

There were two articles in the London Economist dealing with “currency wars” and “fumbling towards a truce”.  We are attaching copies of both articles because we believe they are rather objective in their presentations, which is motivated by a desire to have peaceful solutions.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “How to stop a currency war” at http://www.economist.com/node/17251850

Click HERE to view “Fumbling Towards A Truce” at http://www.economist.com/node/17252006

US Military Developments in East Asia

Dear Colleagues,

We received a comment from one of our most eloquent correspondents on historic phenomena, especially the changes in the world today with a deep sense of history. We attach his comments on our communication regarding the military machinations of the Pentagon.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

—–Original Message—–

From: Sxxxxxxxx@aol.com
To: sjgluck@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 8, 2010 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Military Developments In East Asia

Professor,

The most important point is how few Americans really know what’s really going on around the world and how so many nations are opting us out of many important multi-lateral agreements. We’re slowly being rendered irrelevant by these bold policies which could never have seen the light of day a generation ago. We no longer can bully the rest of humanity into agreeing with us and our positions which may not help improve the plight of everyone. We may have short memories, but mostly everyone else remembers our arrogant policies. We have no one to blame for this sorry state of affairs but ourselves. Today, Thom Hartmann, a man of genuine integrity, badmouthed the Chinese on his program for allegedly selling us chips with “spy” capacity. This was the most insane thing I ever heard on the radio. The Chinese aren’t that stupid. They would have to know the chips would be checked for any anomalies of this sort. More important, why don’t we make these chips here so we won’t need to spend time and energy badmouthing the Chinese? We continue to try and turn the Chinese and the Iranians into enemies when they’ve done nothing worthy of this alarm. What is wrong with this picture? The Chinese have absolutely no reason to sell us bogus chips for stealth purposes because we would retaliate with freezing our bilateral commerce and the billions we send them in interest checks for the mountain of US debt they own. Again, the Chinese aren’t that stupid.

Franklin L. Johnson

Comparison of Economic Structures: China and the USA

Dear Colleagues,

We are witnessing a barrage in the election campaign, mostly Republican candidates but Democrats as well, accusing China of taking our industries and standing in the way of recovery.  Truth is, industry from our country has been absconded overseas by the financial capitalist sector of our own country.  On the other hand, industrial capitalists have conveyed to Obama’s emissary, Ron Bloom, that banks will not loan money for expansion.  The industrialists also suggested that the administration look into China’s dealing with recovery and financing of expansion for both privately and socially owned enterprises (60% in China are privately owned, 20% government-owned, and 20% mixed forms of ownership).  The government has loaned money to companies regardless of ownership to expand and create jobs, especially when introducing high tech and increased productivity.

Basically, the real difference between China’s economic development and our own (capitalist, if you will) is in social planning of the economy, setting goals for expansion and direction.  On the other hand, economic development is independently and privately determined by Finance capitalist groups.  Profitability is the determining factor rather than social need.  There is no special interest in restructuring industry (high tech), creation and sustenance of employment levels, or national fidelity.

In this light, I am attaching two articles from the current Beijing Review dealing with its NEW FIVE-YEAR PLAN indicating specific goals.  They hope to achieve this with private AND government production.  Of course, national infrastructure development is moving forward rapidly as the country industrializes since only 1/3rd has been developed.  They also established a fund for loans to workers wishing to set up small or medium businesses, creating jobs, distribution of consumer products and services. Four weeks ago Obama proposed this to Congress, which didn’t even get a hearing.

As usual, would welcome comments.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Predictions for the Next Five Years” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/business/txt/2010-09/13/content_297716.htm

Click HERE to view “A Plan Is Born” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-09/13/content_297551.htm

Military Developments in East Asia

Dear Colleagues,

In the light of our communication concerning the Pentagon running foreign policy (which included some return comments shared with you), we just received another Beijing Review article titled “Practicing For Peace”, which will make an interesting, contrasting addition to this subject.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Practicing For Peace” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2010-09/17/content_298961.htm