The Olympic Torch: Symbol of Global Economic Neoliberalism
As the New York Times reported yesterday:
But what precisely is the problem? Yes, at one level, the problem is precisely as they understand it, a centralized, authoritarian Chinese government that increasingly relies upon xenophobic appeals to nationalism to justify the suppression of different peoples, cultures and proponents of a more tolerant, diverse society. Certainly, a change in government in Beijing, or even merely a relaxation in the political orientation of the CCP, would improve the conditions under which Uighurs, Tibetans, peasants and manufacturing workers live.In Paris, at the Trocadéro, opposite the Eiffel Tower, human rights organizations like Amnesty International and press freedom groups like Reporters Without Borders protested side by side with representatives of a banned underground Chinese democracy party, Taiwan nationalists and proponents of independence for the Uighurs, a Muslim minority in western China.
“We all have the same problem,” Can Asgar, a leader of the Uighur diaspora in Munich, yelled into a microphone at the Trocadéro. "Freedom for Uighurs. Freedom for Tibet. We must fight together.”
Indeed, it is this internal dynamic, the growing social unrest within China, as discussed here and here and here, that interweaves Tibet and Xinjiang into a larger pattern of discontent. China has abandoned state socialism and remorselessly implemented neoliberal economic policies since the early 1980s, creating an exploitative system that Peter Kwong, quoting a colleague, describes as high tech feudalism. As a consequence, it appears increasingly evident that the government believes that such a system cannot be preserved, even if reformed, without enforcing imperial control over peripheral regions with large numbers of non-ethnic Chinese.
Hong Kong, and possibly even Taiwan, as providers of capital for the Chinese industrial machine, can be provided with a certain measure of autonomy, because they accept the socioeconomic principles upon which the society is built. But Tibet and Xinjiang are problematic, as they emphasize ethnic and religious values that are incompatible with them. Moreover, the peoples of these regions, if granted control over their lives and resources, could set a troubling example for the laboring classes within China.
Such a perspective remains, however, too narrow. Increasingly, the global neoliberal economy is a creation of the US, Europe, Japan and China. Commodities and capital move between these economic zones, and then out to the lesser developed countries of the world, in search of the most profitable opportunities, opportunities dependent upon environmental degradation and a docile workforce that will accept the most demeaning treatment.
At the center of this economy is the relationship between the US and China. US corporations have offshored production to China, commonly through subcontractors, and the manufactured commodities return to the US, where they are purchased by consumers, often through extensive access to generous credit. Of course, the credit aspect of this equation is under stress, as discussed here, putting the future prospects of this model in question, but that does not invalidate my description of the situation.
Accordingly, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games constitutes a coronation of this global structure, with the torch relay being the procession in advance of it. A visit to the relay's official website reveals the predictable corporate sponsors, Coca-Cola, Samsung and Lenovo. Similarly, the Games has an even wider range of corporate sponsors in addition to the relay ones, including VISA, Panasonic, Kodak, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Adidas and Volkswagon. Paralleling the control that China imposes upon its workforce, the participating athletes are not permitted to wear political badges, and innocuous ones worn by torch bearers in Paris may subject them to sanction.
The Olympic Torch has therefore become the symbol of the dominant neoliberal economic order, necessitating repressive measures similar to those required to maintain stability in production facilites around the lesser developed world. It is no accident that the police presence required to escort the torch through the cities of Europe and the US evokes memories of past anti-globalization protests.
But the angry, bleeding protesters have not cast a broad enough net of condemnation. The problem is not just China, but its incorporation into a global economically coercive system of social control. The protesters should therefore aspire not just to put out the torch because of China's atrocious human rights record, but to seize it and destroy it in a provocative public exhibition of contempt for what it perversely represents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games
--------
Meanwhile...
The USA has a long history of imperialist intervention in China, a history that informs current events and undermines American-sourced criticism of Chinese government actions or policies. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_door_policy
Some are talking boycotts. Oh irony! Last time the US boycotted the Olympics, it was to protest an invasion of Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott
Also, there is a larger context in which "pro-Tibet," anti-China actions operate to support Bush Administration goals. That may be worth (re-)thinking about:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/08/18491195.php
which, of course, ignores the reality, that the US and China are two of the most economically interconnected features of the economic system to the detriment of millions, if not billions, of Chinese peasants and workers, not to mention what has been done to people in Xinjiang and Tibet
talk about missing the forests for the trees!
as for the Olympics, they may have been something different in the past, but they are now clearly a major feature of the entertainment aspect of the global economic system, like the Super Bowl and the World Cup
corporately financed, broadcast over the airwaves and bandwidth of transnational media, subsidized by governments like other corporate enterprises, like a Walmart or a mega dairy, tainted by episodes of notorious corruption in the award of Olympic sites, much like the corruption associated with the privatization of public resources, with the participants subjected to strict regulation as to what they can and cannot do, and a history of being run by a racist (Avery Brundige) and a Franco fascist (Juan Samaranch), it 's just another form of consumable culture
to believe otherwise, you'd have to have lived out on the grid for the last 20 to 30 years
Yes, AND there is a well established historical context of US imperialization of Asia for America's own, various purposes.
"hence we shouldn't protest what China is doing there"
Hence, you HAVE NO CREDIBILITY when you "protest China" without accounting for its historical domination by the west, and how and why that has changed.
It's not just markets, you know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_overseas_expansion
Based as it was on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
Which doesn't sound so different than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
...depending on how terms are defined and the demands for them used.
Is it a problem for you that Bush veils his crimes against humanity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
...in human rights rhetoric?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Freedom#Military_aspects
Why don't you tell me why it isn't.
your continued invocation of the history of Western imperialism in China is quite humorous, because the US, Japan and Europe have succeeded in colonizing the country economically to a degree that Britain, Germany, Russia and Japan in the 19th Century could never have imagined, all through the auspices of the CCP and the PLA, by recourse to their flexible adaption of Marxism whereby China constitutes a society that must go through a period of capitalist development before it can proceed to socialism
but, I guess that is what happens when you emphasize the concept of "China" the country, the nation state, while failing to acknowledge what the rulers of this country have done to their own people and the peoples on their periphery, like Xinjiang and Tibet, in order to become a new "superpower" within the current global order
accordingly, I would criticize the protesters for being far too reformist, when a more radical critique of the symbolism of the Olympics is required, although, perhaps a lot of them are engaged in it, and it's just not being reported, that happens a lot
China in the early 20th Century, as manifested in the May 4th movement and the early years of the CCP, was creative and daring in the examination of itself and the world around it, now, the CCP and its defenders utilize the most tawdry references to imperial victimization and xenphobia in an attempt to justify the indefensible
You and I and "Students for Tibet" do not get to judge whether what they feel they need to do to survive in the big, bad world is right or wrong-- particularly not while we continue to be so complicit in what oppression does still go on there. However, I think I can say with some confidence that it is the height of hypocrisy, on several stunning levels, for Americans to be criticizing the Chinese for not living up to our "standards" of "human rights" when we can't even be bothered to impeach a war criminal with a 20-something approval rating before he starts another bloody war.
Move beyond that however ya like. Plenty of the "free Tibet" people don't seem to know enough to see the full implications of the fire they're playing with, and maybe just incidentally, they are playing right into the hands of the crazy, crazy people currently running THIS country. Others considering the movement's "attractiveness," if you will, might still be reachable. That is my concern, and that is why I'm trying to get some basics in front of readers in a way that is, yes, now that you mention it, a bit simplistic. Because imho, THAT is what the situation calls for.
Either way, post it here, and people get to respond however they see fit. And thanks, btw, for bothering to respond to me at all! Sincerely, --Anonymous
people in Tibet and Xinjiang are persecuted and killed because they object to a modernist, autocratic form of Marxist social and economic development for the purported purpose of transforming their societies into contemporary bourgeois ones
the Chinese proletariat labors under horrible conditions evocative of Engels' description of textile mills in Manchester in the 1840s, while the peasantry groans under the burden of arbitrary taxation and property seizures imposed by an unaccountable civil service that regulates their lives with impunity
the fact that the CCP is able to separate Chinese workers and peasants from Tibetans and Uighurs by recourse to embarassingly xenophobic appeals, appeals that include condemnations eerily similar to the way the Israelis describe the Palestinians, is a great tragedy, a tragedy that leaves them defenseless in the face of a CCP/PLA/transnational assault
it is unconscionable, and it should not be defended by a Bush-like "us versus them" approach, just as the left could insist upon an alternative post-9/11 that was "neither Bush nor Bin Laden", it should likewise insist upon one that is "neither Bush nor Jintao"
the notion that my perspective is somehow consistent with traditional US human rights discourse, which has the aim of creating a pro-US Chinese elite with civil liberties and privileges akin to the US middle and upper middle class, along with unfettered access to Chinese labor and resources, and, conceivably, even a US military presence, is a rather odd one, to say the least
or, to put it more bluntly, the US wants to use "human rights" to open Chinese society to finance capital even more than it has done, and eliminate any vestiges of the iron rice bowl and fraternal support outside of the market economy
the US has obviously has no interest in the ethnic, social and labor rights of workers in China, or non-ethnic Chinese on the periphery, the kind of rights that I emphasize in my post
additionallyas for the notions that I am somehow supportive of Bush, "the war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, a cursory visit to my blog will show otherwise
the most important point, however, is that the protests are being ignited, not just by Americans, but by Tibetans, Uighurs and Chinese democracy advocates, in other words, they possess an indigenous quality that you have not acknowledged because it refutes your attempt to characterize this situation as a xenophobic one of "China versus America"
people who persist in characterizing it this way may be surprised at how the future unfolds
It's also easy to blithely support bad things because you are certain they are for good ends. That edge always cuts both ways, though, so take care yourself, my friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007
Can blood libel be far behind? Already happening, over at the Chron...
I wonder what would happen if Tibetans started blowing up buses in China? Any guesses?
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.