China: Reform and Revolution in the People's Republic PDF

Preview

Summary

CHAPTER 6 China Reform and Revolution in the People’s Republic Ajit Singh This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution. The founding of the People’s Republic on October 1st, 1949 announced to the world that “the Chinese people have stood up.” Seventy years later, this declaration h...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

China: Reform and Revolution in the People's Republic Ajit Singh Keywords in Radical Philosophy and Education: Common Concepts for Contemporary Movements

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Post socialism? Reflect ions on “socialism wit h Chinese charact erist ics” Arif Dirlik

Social Class in China Today Richard West ra T he Financial Crisis and a Crisis of Expert ise: A Chinese Genealogy of Neoliberalism Giulia Dal Maso

CHAPTER 6

China

Reform and Revolution in the People’s Republic Ajit Singh This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution. The founding of the People’s Republic on October 1st, 1949 announced to the world that “the Chinese people have stood up.” Seventy years later, this declaration has become an undeniable fact. The “sick man of Asia” has risen from extreme poverty and foreign subjugation to international power. China now has the world’s second largest economy and is generally expected to overtake the United States within the coming decades. It is difficult to overstate the significance of China’s ascendance. As Maddison reflects, “[w]hen historians look back at our period, it is likely that few developments will appear quite so striking as the economic emergence of China…The world faces a new set of economic opportunities and challenges, and China lies at the heart of them” (2007, p. 3). China’s rise has taken the West by surprise. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and uncontested international supremacy of the US had been thought to signal the ultimate “triumph of the West” and the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1989). Capitalism had prevailed once and for all with “the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives,” and it was only a matter of time before we witnessed “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government” (Fukuyama, 1989, pp. 3–4). The ascendance of China, guided by a political system which fundamentally rejects “Western liberal democracy,” has eroded the foundation for this narrative. How has such a remarkable development been possible—particularly during a period in which the “Washington consensus” advanced almost throughout the world and “systematic alternatives” fell into retreat? The dominant Western narrative severs the connection between contemporary China and the revolution, arguing that the country’s rise is due to its abandoning of socialism for capitalism following economic reforms which were initiated in 1978. The continued leadership of the Communist Party is dismissed as a relic of a bygone era, its expressed commitments to Marxism and socialism considered to be false, perfunctory proclamations made by a ruling elite seeking to secure legitimacy.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi: 10.1163/9789004400467_006

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

69

China

This “capitalist restoration” narrative is essentially unchallenged in the West, holding sway across the political spectrum. The political right, most notably exemplified today by the Trump administration, argues that China’s rise is illgotten, due to nefarious actions that have taken advantage of the West, such as “stealing” jobs and technology and flouting the international “rules-based order.” The Western left generally shares the right’s view that China is a regressive force in the world, attributing its soaring economic growth to the adoption of a dystopian, hyper-exploitative capitalist system which has constructed the “sweatshop of the world.” This left view accords Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China’s reforms, a place in history alongside Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as ushering in the era of neoliberal capitalism (Harvey, 2005). Even those fields of radical philosophy and critical education, which purport to counteract hegemonic ideology and practices, invariably reproduce this predominant orientation.1 This chapter aims to challenge the West’s conventional understanding of China’s rise. Rather than a restoration of capitalism, China’s economic “standing up” is a product of the Communist Party’s continued adherence to Marxism and pursuit of socialist development. Before examining China, it is necessary to first review Marx and Engels’ thought on socialism, along with historical experiences in constructing a post-capitalist society, particularly the New Economic Policy implemented by the Soviet Union. Marx and Engels on Socialism According to The Communist Manifesto, capitalism will inevitably be overcome because, after developing the productive forces “more massive and more colossal…than have all preceding generations together,” the “conditions of bourgeois property” no longer further such development but act as a “fetter” which hinders their growth and must be “burst asunder” (Marx & Engels, 1848). The transformation of the capitalist system is placed on to the historical agenda because the existing social relations and development of the productive forces have come into contradiction. Revolution will not occur spontaneously but will be brought about by conscious human action, namely the struggle between oppressed and oppressor classes. Marx and Engels (1948) identify the proletariat, or working class, “alone [as] a really revolutionary class,” under capitalism, not merely due to the exploitation it suffers, but because it is the only class whose historical trajectory moves in tandem with the further development of the forces of production. Having no property of their own, “the proletarians cannot become

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

70

Singh

masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation” (1848), by abolishing the “fetters” on economic development. According to Marx and Engels, a revolution securing the political and economic supremacy of the working class would be capable of resolving the contradictions within capitalism, promoting greater economic development using this growing social wealth to steadily improve the living conditions of the working class and move humanity towards a class-less, communist society. Socialism was envisaged as the transition period lying between capitalism and communism, during which the working class is the ruling class: Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (Marx, 1891) In contrast to capitalist society, in which “the modern labourer…sinks deeper and deeper,” as capital rises, under socialism the political power of the working class would result in wealth being used “to widen, to enrich, [and] to promote the existence of the labourer” (Marx & Engels, 1848). However, Marx and Engels emphasized that a class-less, communist society could and would not be immediately realized. Socialist development would be a protracted process shaped and constrained by objective conditions, including the capitalist society from which it is born: What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. (Marx, 1891) As Althusser illustrates, Marx theorized that within any given social formation multiple modes of production co-exist, one of which is always dominant, and others which are dominated and either going out of or coming into existence. This co-existence of different modes of production produces a “contradictory complexity of the empirical facts observable in every concrete social formation…[and] contradictory tendencies that clash within it” (2014, pp. 19–20). Under socialism, Marx and Engels theorized that a dominated capitalist mode of production would continue to exist for some time, producing “contradictory tendencies.” The Communist Manifesto states that “the proletariat will

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

71

China

use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State.” While outlining that public ownership by the worker’s state would predominate, in specifying “by degree,” it is apparent that Marx and Engels did not surmise that private property would be abolished immediately. Engels expands on this point, stating that private property will gradually disappear in correspondence with the development of the productive forces: Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity. (1847) Similarly, Marx contends that inequality will continue to exist under socialism, with remuneration taking place according to the quality and quantity of work performed, which necessarily is a “right of inequality” (1891). These “defects are inevitable” during socialism, “when it has just emerged…from capitalist society” (1891). Marx and Engels (1848) pointedly criticized “utopian socialism,” which advocated political action that ignored objective economic conditions. “In times of universal excitement,” this utopianism “inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.” The utopians failed to account for objective conditions and thus were plagued by voluntarism and idealism: “Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones.” Socialism, for Marx and Engels, was distinct from mere “social levelling” or the pursuit of an ahistorical “ideal” society. “Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces” (Marx, 1847), and socialism too will be conditioned by this objective law, as “[r]ight can never be higher than the economic structure of society” (Marx, 1891). Transitions to a “higher phase” of communist society can only be realized by producing a great abundance of material wealth. As such, the first priority of the socialist state is “to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible” in order to create “the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat” (Marx & Engels, 1848). It is only “after the productive forces have also increased…and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can…society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Marx, 1891).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

72

Singh

Lenin and the “New Economic Policy” Marx and Engels had thought socialist revolution would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe, since it was there that the productive forces were most highly developed. The course of history, however, moved differently. Revolution was not on the agenda in the centers of the world system, but in the peripheral and semi-peripheral regions. These states were confronted with constructing socialism, not merely emerging from capitalism, but also from feudalism and colonialism and emerging into the hostile, profoundly unequal global environment of capitalist-imperialism. The Soviet Union, the world’s first socialist state, experimented with diverse methods in building a post-capitalist society. For our purposes, it is particularly important to examine the New Economic Policy (NEP), enacted from 1921–1928. Emerging from the devastation of both World War I and the civil war, the country was stricken by poverty, widespread shortages, and severe economic crises. Economic development was essential to improve living conditions, consolidate support for the revolution, and safeguard national security by preventing a further lagging behind the advanced capitalist countries. The NEP introduced “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control” (Lenin, 1922), inviting foreign capitalist investment, leasing enterprises to private capitalists, and making allowances for free trade. The state retained strict control over the “commanding heights” of the economy—including heavy industry, transport, finance, and foreign trade—but sought to improve efficiency and productivity by operating on a “profit basis” (Lenin, 1922), using to their advantage the competitive pressures of the market and personal incentives. The tremendous enthusiasm generated by the revolution, Lenin reflected, had led to mistaken, utopian notions of organizing society “on communist lines…directly” (1921a), bypassing objective conditions. Instead it would be necessary to prioritize developing the productive forces, given their situation of economic underdevelopment and international vulnerability. “We must increase production first and foremost and at all costs,” Lenin emphasized, and “utilise capitalism…as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces” (1921a). During this period, it was necessary that the worker’s state “become a cautious, assiduous and shrewd ‘businessman’…there is no other way of progressing to communism” (Lenin, 1921a). While “retreating” from certain egalitarian and collectivist policies, and reintroducing capitalist development, Lenin conceived of this as a step forward—“the laying of economic foundations”—for socialist development:

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

73

China

It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary—state capitalism and socialism—in order to prepare…by many years of effort— for the transition to communism. Not directly relying on enthusiasm, but aided by the enthusiasm engendered by the great revolution, and on the basis of personal interest, personal incentive and business principles, we must first set to work in this small peasant country to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism. Otherwise we shall never get to communism, we shall never bring scores of millions of people to communism. (1921a) The NEP proved successful in promoting economic development, bettering living conditions, and improving the Soviet Union’s international position by reducing the gap in relation to the advanced capitalist countries. At the same time, the policies allowed for capitalist enterprise, which increased unemployment and inequality. The contradictory tendencies produced by the NEP confused many, leading to a sense that the revolution had been “betrayed.” As Gramsci observed at the time, the contradiction posed by the “dominant [working] class…experiencing conditions of living inferior to those of certain elements and strata of the dominated and subjected [capitalist] class” was historically “unprecedented,” and readily invited denunciations: Certainly, it is easy to be demagogic in this sphere. It is easy to insist on the negative sides of the contradiction: ‘Are you the ruler, o badly dressed and badly fed workers? Or is the Nepman in his furs, with all the goods of the earth at his disposal, the real ruler?’ (2000, pp. 169–170) In response to these criticisms, Lenin argued that the NEP “does not change the nature of the workers’ state” (1922). Although certain “negative sides of the contradiction” existed—including “concessions” to the bourgeoisie –capitalist development during the NEP was “controlled and regulated by the proletarian state” which, on the whole, directed it “for the benefit of the working class” (Lenin, 1921b). The overriding character of the social formation was still determined by the socialist state due to its control over the “the great bulk of the means of production” (Lenin, 1922). Though the increasing threat of war eventually led to collectivization and abandonment of the NEP, it demonstrated in practice that “a definite transition period” exists between capitalism and communism “which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy” (Lenin, 1919). At least in conditions of underdevelopment and international vulnerability,

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

74

Singh

capitalist production would likely need to be utilised for some time to promote economic development and thus indirectly support socialist construction. While this produced “contradictory complexity”—including the market, inequality, and social ills—for Lenin, there was no way around this. It was the imperfect, concrete reality that communists must grapple with. China’s “Reform and Opening Up” In the century prior to the Chinese revolution, the country was reduced to a semi-colonial status, subject to foreign domination by the West and Japan. Imperialism and feudalism left China severely impoverished and underdeveloped. As Bramall notes, at the time of the revolution in 1949, China “was not only behind the Europe of two centuries earlier but markedly inferior to Britain even before that country embarked on its own Industrial Revolution” (2009, p. 55). In its first three decades, the Chinese revolution made remarkable advances in health, education, and basic industrialization, nearly doubling life expectancy. However, despite these significant social and economic achievements, in 1978 the country remained extremely poor with 542 million people living below the international poverty line, on less than one dollar per day (Angang, 2005, p. 60). China’s GDP per capita was lower than that of India and substantially less than the Soviet Union following the NEP (Maddison, 2003, pp. 100, 184). Internationally, China’s position relative to the advanced capitalist countries remained largely unchanged. In 1978 China’s per capita GDP was approximately one-twentieth that of the US—nearly the same ratio it had been in 1949 (Maddison, 2003, pp. 89, 184). As a point of reference, the per capita GDP of the Soviet Union at the end of the NEP was one-fifth that of the US (Maddison, 2003, pp. 88, 100). The dominance which the US and its allies exercised over the international political and economic order left China isolated. For over two decades following the establishment of the People’s Republic, the US imposed a total trade embargo on the country and prevented it from taking its rightful seat at the United Nations. China was also denied the preferential trade, investment and transfers of technology provided to developing countries which accepted subordination to Western interests. This isolation threatened the sustainability of China’s socialist system, as the country lacked the internal resources to modernize, overcome the development gap, and meet its people’s needs. In addition to national security concerns, a prolonged lag in development risked sowing frustration and undermining popular support for the Chinese revolution. As Deng put it, “[i]f

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

75

China

our economy stagnates or develops only slowly, the people will make comparisons and ask why” (1992). Without an economic “catching up,” how would people’s confidence in socialism withstand the political and ideological onslaught of capitalism and imperialism? In this context, the Communist Party of China (CPC) identified economic development as the “principal contradiction” which needed to be addressed to advance socialist development in China: [W]e are starting from a weak base. The damage inflicted over a long period by the forces of imperialism, ...