Sam Webb on Chinese Socialism

[jacobin1949]

Sam Webb on Chinese Socialism

PA: Many countries that have a socialist orientation are in the developing world: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Several have adopted a concept of socialism called market socialism. I know we have said there are no models, but is the socialist market economy the new model?
Socialism is not just a project of the left; it has to be a mass project of millions and of diverse social forces.

Webb: These countries are in the early stages of socialism – they are developing countries and the productive forces are at a low level – so they are employing market mechanisms to assist in their economic development. This doesn’t contradict the thinking of Marx, Engels or Lenin. Even if we were dealing with more advanced countries – take our country for example - if this were the day after, the week after, the year after, the decade after the socialist revolution, we would employ market mechanisms in the construction of the socialist economy. There was a tendency in the communist movement to expect that market relations would disappear almost overnight, in the early stages of socialism. I’m not convinced that was an accurate reading of the classical literature or a lesson that we should draw from the experience of socialist construction in the 20th century. Some socialist countries tried to make too quick a leap from one stage of socialist development, in which market relations were employed, to a more advanced stage, in which commodity-money relations were marginal, and, as a result, experienced very negative consequences.

The example that comes most readily to mind is China. At the core of Mao’s economic policies was not simply the acceleration of the pace of development, but rather leaping over whole stages. Unfortunately, China pursued that policy at a very dear price. There’s a lot of controversy now about the current economic policies of the Communist Party of China. Many people are critical, but in my short stay there (I visited about a year and a half ago), it was apparent that the opening up of the country and the employment of market mechanisms has led to the acceleration of growth. Some say there is greater inequality, and that’s true, but at the same time they are lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Simply because the Chinese are utilizing market mechanisms and inserting themselves into the global economy is not reason enough to conclude that China is moving away from socialism.

Why do I say this? First of all, no country can develop apart from the global economy? While it is no simple task for the socialist and developing countries to insert themselves into a world economy that is dominated by and structured in the interests of the most powerful capitalist countries, do these countries have any other feasible option? Secondly, market mechanisms are not by definition at war with socialist construction. Whether they are utilized and how they contribute to socialist construction of one or another country can’t be solved abstractly in the realm of high theory. It has to be answered by examining the concrete political and economic circumstances in any given country.

Finally, we should study the experience of socialism in the 20th century as well as revisit both the early literature and more recent discussions on the socialist economy before we draw hard and fast conclusions with respect to the use of market criteria and tools in a socialist society. Lenin once said (and I’m paraphrasing him here) that the economic policies of the post-civil war Soviet state had to be adjusted to the mentality of the peasants, which led to the adoption of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. Not only was this necessary to revive an economy that was in shambles after the civil war, but it was the glue that maintained the strategic alliance between a tiny working class and huge peasantry. This alliance, Lenin argued time and again, was the essential political requirement for the forward movement of socialism in a very backward country.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/24/1/1

[Dros]

Did he just advocate using the market during socialism? :o

Can someone explain to me what, exactly, is so Communist about the Communist Party, USA. :huh:

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:54 pm
Did he just advocate using the market during socialism? :o

Can someone explain to me what, exactly, is so Communist about the Communist Party, USA. :huh:
the name & rethoric ?

[lvleph]

I agree that the market should be used in a developing nation, and when it is necessary. Now I am not talking capitalism. Worker's rights are very important, obviously. The market is required to develop a highly industrialized society. It is important to a communist/socialist/anarchist society to have a large working class, and so it makes sense to use the market to build that large working class.

[Dimentio]

I am also in agreement that we need to employ the market in order to make the transformation to a more sustainable and egalitarian community. The state is also necessary to employ, but it is crucial to secure the leadership of the movement in this endeavour.

[RedStarOverChina]

Oh cut the crap! Market economy IS capitalism!

It's the unavoidable fate for all developing nations, but it sure as hell ain't socialism. It's a process of brutal exploitation of the workers.

The Chinese working class is enslaved in every sense of the word by capitalists and especially capitalists from developed nations. Foreign transnationals have a pretty good grip on both workers and China as a country. Foreign-based transnational corporations “control virtually all the intellectual property in China and account for 85% of its technology exports” (Economist, 2005, 61).

45% of China’s exports are produced by firms with foreign investment. Moreover, economic growth ever since the 80s have been “largely driven by external demand and external supply of finances and resources aimed at meeting that eternal demand.” (Breslin, Shaun, 2007: 191) The interests of the Chinese workers are not a priority in this relationship, to say the least.

In fact, the real wage of Chinese workers in Guangdong (The most productive province of China) has actually decreased as much as 30% in the past decade.

Because IF, God forbid, there's a rise in wages; or the value of Chinese currency increases; foreign multinationals would pull out the next day and move to Vietnam or India (where the average wage is already 50% of that of China).

Need I elaborate the on consequences of such a scenario? I'll give you a hint: the growth in Chinese economy is almost entirely fueled by exports of manufactured goods.

If you do a little research you'd find out what a disastrous effect Chinese capitalism had had on not only Chinese workers, but all Asian workers for the past 30 years. Asian workers are being pitted against each other to compete in being more exploited.

The rise of Chinese capitalism has set back the clock for Asian working class movement for at least 30 years. It's a major set-back for world-wide working class movement as well, probably gives international Capitalism quite a few extra years.

[lvleph]

And is the reason why I said workers' rights need to be protected. Chinese workers are not allowed to unionize, so obviously they cannot strike either.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:36 pm
And is the reason why I said workers' rights need to be protected. Chinese workers are not allowed to unionize, so obviously they cannot strike either.
That is not technically true, but the "All-China Federation of Trade Unions" doesn't really do anything.

According to several Chinese leftist workers, the trend is that workers are getting more and more militant and they are in the process of building a real worker's movement.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:06 pm
I agree that the market should be used in a developing nation, and when it is necessary. Now I am not talking capitalism. Worker's rights are very important, obviously. The market is required to develop a highly industrialized society. It is important to a communist/socialist/anarchist society to have a large working class, and so it makes sense to use the market to build that large working class.
Au contraire, comrade. China and the USSR developed quite rapidly without reinstating the market.

Workers rights don't equal socialism. The market is capitalism. There is no such thing as "market socialism."

The idea is to destroy class distinctions, not to build the working class. The market inherently suppresses the working class and is always contradictory to socialist aims.

[Xiao Banfa]

Socialism has definately been set back massively in China.

Most chinese have to pay for health care, strikes have been illegal since 1982, they've completely neglected assisting the international communist movement.

Although I believe using the market to temporarily stimulate the economy is necessary as long as it is massively subjugated by the publicly owned economy.

Cuba does this by allowing family restaurants to compete with state owned restaurants. This improves the quality of both kinds of restaurants.

But Cuba is alot more careful with its use of market mechanisms than China is.

For example the Cuban government does not permit housing speculation and landlords while China doesn't give a fuck.

How Jacobin1949 can claim that chinese workers working longer hours for worse pay with less social security guarantees and fewer rights represents a continuation of socialism is beyond me.

However it remains to be seen whether chinese socialism has been completely defeated in all shapes and forms. I hope there can be some kind of a comeback.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 30, 2007 06:31 am
Socialism has definately been set back massively in China.
Socialism has been totally destroyed in China. There is a bourgoisie and feirce exploitation of workers. Sounds kinda like capitalism...

[RedStarOverChina]

Capitalism in China: A Working Class Nightmare...With Chinese Characteristics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=73784&st=0#entry1292425934)

My critique against Chinese capitalism. Not very well polished but it can provide some information to those interested.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:22 pm
The rise of Chinese capitalism has set back the clock for Asian working class movement for at least 30 years. It's a major set-back for world-wide working class movement as well, probably gives international Capitalism quite a few extra years.
Actually, the current conditions of the Asian working class contain within them the seeds of a serious crisis for the capitalist world system, and a great deal of revolutionary potential.

One of the reasons that people can be paid below subsistence wages in the least developed countries is the existence of semi-proletarian income pooling households, with maybe 3-10 members bringing in income in various different ways; these households can bring in income through subsistence farming and selling produce, and many people will be involved in some proletarian labour in addition to other forms of income. As they aren't completely dependant on a living wage, they are more likely to accept low wages and less likely to form part of a workers' movement.

The proletarianisation of China and India has thus created a crisis; both countries are dependant on cheap labour to encourage investment, but that cheap labour happens to have ideas of it's own. Mass incidents in China hit 87,000 in 2005, and have been increasing every year since 1993 which saw only 8,700 incidents. I think India and Vietnam have seen a lesser degree of "true" proletarianisation than China has in the last decade; but it's inevitable that they will soon see it and it will have similar effects. The global consequences of a strong workers movement in Asia is a scary prospect for capitalists; if the developing world demands higher wages, they would come at the expense of real wages, work conditions, public spending and social security in the developed world, as capitalists would need to recover lost profits. This then undermines the public consent that grants legitimacy to our "democracies."

There are two broad possible outcomes I can see of this tendency; either workers in developing countries continue to be denied better conditions, and this lack of reformist potential leads to a revolutionary wave. Or, they are given concessions and western workers with their higher standards and expectations will have their priviledges removed to compensate for this, which would be so unpopular it could only be enforced through a far more authoritarian political system. Both outcomes have every potential to ignite a worldwide revolution, especially as the former possibility would lead to the latter anyway, as western workers would pay the price for capitalist defeat.

[Marxist Napoleon]

I think the Chinese system is extremely flawed, but don't blame the CP for cautiously supporting it. In case you haven't realized, there's only five "communist" countries left. We don't really have much to work with... I think the market can be used to grow the economy, but this must be done within a socialist framework. China has aspects of a socialist framework, but it obviously didn't do enough to control the market. Still, there is a lot of hope for China, because one day the people will realize that their economy has grown enough, and they can look back to Mao for ideological support in building socialism. That being said, I would still greatly prefer a planned economy, which has been successfully used in the past to expand and industrialize backwards nations.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 01, 2007 11:38 am
I think the Chinese system is extremely flawed, but don't blame the CP for cautiously supporting it. In case you haven't realized, there's only five "communist" countries left.
Except China has been going down this revisionist path since the 1970's, when it decided that the USSR was a bigger threat than the US and that the US will somehow magically decline in power, thus investing in them (and vice-versa) is a great idea.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 01, 2007 04:38 pm
I think the market can be used to grow the economy, but this must be done within a socialist framework.
This is a contradiction in terms. Market = capitalism!

[Marxist Napoleon]

Market = method of distributing commodities! it depends on who owns the means of production that feed that market. If worker-controlled enterprises compete in the market in a socialist state, then it's using market mechanisms in a socialist state. Again, I definately prefer planning over the market, in whatever framework. I'm just trying to support the CPUSA line and understand the motivations for the growing market in China.

[JimFar]

It seems to me that what the Chinese call "market socialism" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is rather different than the sort of market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) that was advocated by people like the Polish Marxist economist Oskar Lange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_R._Lange) or by such contemporary writers as John Roemer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roemer) and David Schweikart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweickart). For one thing the proposals that people like Lange et al. have made for market socialism generally involve maintaining public ownership over the means of production and the retention of some form of central planning. Presumably, under the proposals of people like Lange or Roemer or Schweikart you wouldn't have billionaires ("socialist billionaires"?) like China has (which also apparently is allowing such people to join the CCP).

Whether a market socialist economy would work as advertised is another matter over which comrades can disagree. I suspect that a market socialism would be a transitional system. It would over time either evolve towards a system in which market relations become less and less prominent or it might devolve back to capitalism. Much would depend on the level of consciousness of the masses. And it should be noted that standard objection to market socialism is that it is argued that the retention of market relations under socialism would have a negative effect on the consciousness of the masses.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The idea is to read the word "market" when applied to "socialism" exactly like you would read the "not" in "not on your nelly".

[jacobin1949]

Marx never advocated using socialism as a tool to increase productive forces during the early stages of industrialization. If feudal states were meant to go directly to communism then there would be no historic role for capitalism. The market plays an important role in human history of creating the productive forces that can end scarcity. However the capitalists classes will attempt to create an artificial scarcity leading to socialist reorganization of society. 'Marx was very clear in his opposition of a leap from feudalism to socialism. To ignore this is to fall into Narodist beliefs that capitalism is inherently evil and should and can be avoided by "unique" societies.

Expecting China to become immediately communist would be like expecting a leap from the Roman Empire's slave society directly into 19th Century British capitalist society.

[JimFar]

jacobin wrote:


Marx never advocated using socialism as a tool to increase productive forces during the early stages of industrialization. If feudal states were meant to go directly to communism then there would be no historic role for capitalism. The market plays an important role in human history of creating the productive forces that can end scarcity. However the capitalists classes will attempt to create an artificial scarcity leading to socialist reorganization of society. 'Marx was very clear in his opposition of a leap from feudalism to socialism. To ignore this is to fall into Narodist beliefs that capitalism is inherently evil and should and can be avoided by "unique" societies.

I don't think that Marx's views on this were quite so cut and dry, especially in his later years. See Louis Proyect's essay, Marx and the Russian peasant commune (http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w52/msg00139.htm). There Proyect notes that Marx was open to the idea that given the survival in Russia of precapitalist instiutions like the mir or peasant commune, a revolution in Russia could have proceeded directly to socialism provided that such a revolution was accompanied by proletarian revolutions in the West. In this matter, it would seem that Marx was himself somewhat at odds with his Russian disciple, Plekhanov, who was already arguing the necessity for Russia to undergo a capitalist phase before it could hope to become socialist.

All this was dealt with in in Teodor Shanin's Late Marx and the Russian Road.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 01, 2007 11:05 pm
Market = method of distributing commodities! it depends on who owns the means of production that feed that market. If worker-controlled enterprises compete in the market in a socialist state, then it's using market mechanisms in a socialist state. Again, I definately prefer planning over the market, in whatever framework. I'm just trying to support the CPUSA line and understand the motivations for the growing market in China.
The market is necessarily exploitative. It favors businesses that are competative. Competative business means paying people less and charging them more. So the market necessarily skrews the proletariat on both ends. There is no way around this contradiction.

Why are you trying to support the line of the CPUSA? The motivation for the growing market in China is PROFIT! China is capitalist in every meaningful sense of the word!

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:31 am
Marx never advocated using socialism as a tool to increase productive forces during the early stages of industrialization. If feudal states were meant to go directly to communism then there would be no historic role for capitalism. The market plays an important role in human history of creating the productive forces that can end scarcity. However the capitalists classes will attempt to create an artificial scarcity leading to socialist reorganization of society. 'Marx was very clear in his opposition of a leap from feudalism to socialism. To ignore this is to fall into Narodist beliefs that capitalism is inherently evil and should and can be avoided by "unique" societies.

Expecting China to become immediately communist would be like expecting a leap from the Roman Empire's slave society directly into 19th Century British capitalist society.
You are being very mechanistic here. The fact that Marx never said that productive forces could be increased during socialism doesn't mean it's not ok. Secondly, socialism can do it without the exploitation. Marx's theory is a description of reality as he saw it, not some kind of master recipe for communism. It is okay to sometimes "skip" or "condense" because 1.) socialism can develop these productive forces better and 2.) Marx was sometimes (not often but on occassion) wrong! I hate to say it people, but this is an objective fact. We can not uncritically except everything he said. This kind of stagist Menshevick argument has no grounding (that we should wait to be socialist until capitalism has developed the productive forces).

I'm not expecting China to become immediately communist. I'm expecting the Chinese government to try to build socialism as they did up until Mao's defeat and the revisionist coup. China is no longer socialist in any way. They are totally and utterly capitalist in reality. This is the objective economic mode of production currently enforced today.

[JimFar]

Concerning market socialism and other socialist models, the Marxist economist David Laibman gets into some of these issues in his recent book, Deep History: A Study of Evolution and Human Potential.

(Also see the 2004 interview with Laibman that appeared in Political Affairs.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/ar...eview/236/1/35/ (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/236/1/35/)

In a review of that book that I have been working on I write:

Laibman not only holds that his PF-PR (productive forces-production relations) model can be used to elucidate the many issues concerning the feudal-capitalist transition (issues that have been debated by scholars like Paul Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, Perry Anderson, Robert Brenner etc.) but that this model has important implications for understanding how the transition from capitalism to socialism and beyond might occur. He considers an evaluation or rather re-evaluation of the experiences of the Soviet Union and of other Soviet-type societies in both their positive and negative aspects to be of crucial importance for understanding the dynamics of the capitalist-socialist transition. In this discussion, Laibman discusses a number of issues including the proposals that have been made for market socialism as a model to be
preferred over Soviet-style centrally planned socialism. Laibman rejects market socialism but recognizes that markets may play a very significant role in the building of socialism and he points out that the Soviet economy did have markets of various types. In Laibman's view, one cannot abstract markets from the social contexts in which they exist, as most forms of free-market ideology tend to do. He also discusses the proposals by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel for a participatory economy in which collectives of workers would be organized to negotiate the production and distribution of goods without any sort of reliance on market relations but would also be lacking in any central bodies or structures of authority that could degenerate into a bureaucratic caste. Negotiations between producer and consumer collective would be mediated through an Iteration Facilitation Board in a system of horizontal coordination.

Laibman sees some merit in Albert & Hahnels' proposals inasmuch as they place strong emphasis on democratic participation. However, he faults them for unwittingly proposing to reproduce much of the alienation associated with the market economy. There are no mechanisms provided in their proposals for achieving or facilitating the development of social consensus concerning the outcome of iterations. The iterations, as Albert & Hahnel admit, will be designed to reproduce the allocations that would have been generated by the market, since their iteration model is supposed to guarantee economic efficiency by replicating the Walrasian general equilibrium. Their model does not allow for the establishment of a conscious political control over economic activity. Instead, it attempts to replicate the outcomes of markets without making use of markets. Laibman also objects that the constant meetings and negotiations that would be required for the iterative organization of production and consumption would require more time and participation than most people would be able to bear.

Likewise, Laibman finds both significant merits and demerits in the proposals made by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin F. Cottrell for a computerized centrally planned socialist economy. Against bourgeois economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, Cockshott and Cottrell argue that developments in computer technology make it possible to overcome the so-called socialist calculation problem. The many
thousands, if not millions, of simultaneous equations that economists tell us would have to be solved in a complex economy, can in fact be solved within seconds by computers. Moreover, Laibman agrees with them that modern computer technology, including computer networking, makes rational economic coordination possible without our necessarily having to rely upon markets. However, Laibman objects that Cockshott and Cottrell fail to take into account the importance of things like local knowledge and traditions, which cannot be easily factored into mathematical models.

To some extent, Laibman actually endorses the Misean-Hayekian objection that central planning cannot be expected to handle those sorts of issues very well. And he also faults them with attaching too much importance to the problem of economic coordination whereas he thinks that the decisive advantage of socialism will most likely turn out to be in the area of what he calls consensualization, that is the establishment of participatory planning which aims to create consensus and shared vision as the economy and society are brought under the conscious control of the masses. However, he agrees with them that the revolution in information technology is a decisive example of how capitalism is being undermined by the development of the PFs (productive forces). Modern technology makes possible the decisive transcendence of capitalism. Laibman proposes that under socialism we might wish to rely upon what he calls an E-Coordi-Net which would be modeled after the Internet and which would be responsible for registering and processing the flows of economic data, thereby facilitating participatory democratic control over the productive forces.

[jacobin1949]

There is nothing Menshevist about Chinese industrialization. While market forces are being used during the primary stage of socialism all instruments of power are still under the control of the vanguard of the working class. This is perfectly in line with Lenin's Commanding Heights theory during the NEP period.

[JimFar]

jacobin writes:


There is nothing Menshevist about Chinese industrialization. While market forces are being used during the primary stage of socialism all instruments of power are still under the control of the vanguard of the working class. This is perfectly in line with Lenin's Commanding Heights theory during the NEP period.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall ever reading that Lenin or Bukharin ever allowed Nepmen to join the Communist Party, but in China, billionaire capitalists are allowed and even encouraged to join the CCP.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:05 pm
There is nothing Menshevist about Chinese industrialization. While market forces are being used during the primary stage of socialism all instruments of power are still under the control of the vanguard of the working class. This is perfectly in line with Lenin's Commanding Heights theory during the NEP period.
The CCP became revisionist decades ago. They have formed a new bourgois class that controls the means of production at the expense of the workers for profit!

This is not socialism. This is blatantly a capitalist system! In China, socialism died with Mao and the revisionist coup. The PRC is communist in name only. The mode of production is clearly capitalist.

What is Menshevist is the idea that backward countries shouldn't develop socialism because "the market plays an important role in human history."