With China coming on slowly but surely as an economic powerhouse of the new century it gives one pause as to just what China’s political posture is both internally and toward the outside world. With China accepting, and even encouraging direct capitalist investment, along with many of the attitudes and assumptions of capitalism but without the political freedoms, are they still really communists or just really bad oppressive captialists or… what?
I should have linked this in the original question. This was the Washington Post article that sparked my curiosity.
A Factory to the World
China’s Vast Labor Pool, Low Wages Lure Manufacturers
Labels are pretty useless if you want to understand things. China is very fast becoming capitalist and the majority of the economy is already capitalist. At the same time it still retains an authoritarian government which calls itself “communist”. My guess is that, barring major accidents, China will become a major capitalist country and the form of government will have to evolve towards a freer system as is already happening. You want a label for that? How about “Chinese-Style Communism”? Does the label really matter?
If you mean
not entirely. But few people would argue that it’s still a single, authoritarian party. I understand Chile’s Pinochet is of great interest to some of the Chicoms.
I’d say that the model China is heading towards is more fascist than capitalist. In fascist economies, individuals still own the means of production and profit from them, but the government maintains strict control over them.
Communists? No. Autocrats? Yes. A quick blurb from my Far East Tour Thread from a while back.
That the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) still controls vast segments of the commercial sector bodes rather ill for China’s future. The incredible amounts of featherbedding and inefficiency result in many stillborn projects and enterprises. Slowly but surely, a little realism is seeping in as their leadership realizes that production incentives and individual wealth are going to be necessary if China ever wishes to join the 21[sup]st[/sup] century.
Of course, it is nearly impossible for the Chinese to ever use the dreaded “C” word (capitalism), so they continue to blather on about “market based economies” and other such drivel as their industry irreversibly shifts to a capitalistic model. The repercussions of their “one family, one child” policy is what gives me the most pause. As a generation of spoiled rotten and manipulative boy children begin to take the reins of an autocratic nuclear power, there is much to fear.
I myself am politically very naive, and easily confused. However, I used to carpool with Yuri, a Soviet refusenik who always had something pithy to say. His take on the matter at hand was this:
The Soviets screwed the pooch by first loosening political control before the changeover to capitalism was solidified.
The Chinese Communists, he argued, are first making a controlled conversion to a free market system, to be followed by a gradual relaxing of personal/political liberties.
I don’t know…it makes sense to me.
But the thing is, to many of us it seems SO controlled that it does not look like the establishment of a real free-market system, what with the aforementioned role of the Army as entrepreneur, or the almost certain crushing of any opposition to an oficially-sanctioned proposal (having a buncha tree-huggers force you to build the factory elsewhere IS part of the free market!) or the dumping. Nor does it seem that the gradual relaxation of personal/political liberty is planned to follow economic prosperity by any less than will the next ski report from Hell.
Currently, as Sam said, it looks more fascistic than anything else to us Westerners…
The leadership may NOT be planning on a controlled motion into a liberal democracy within a generation. They probably view liberal democracy – and its handmaiden, a liberal society – as a risky “outsider” thing, and may be seeking to create some sort of uniquely Chinese answer to the situation which would avoid an “Un-China-ing” of their way of life, and avoid providing an excuse for future “Cultural Revolutions”. (BTW, the CP’s officially-applauded Chinese philosophy is the Legalist School, which emphasizes authoritarianism and rule through an iron enforcement of the Law; its biggest competitor among the people is the Confucian School, which preaches… paternalism; and rule by those of great virtue or merit.)
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but… I really liked P.J. O’Rourke’s take on the comparison between China and Russia’s movement into whatever’s next in the book “Eat the Rich”. (BTW he also concludes the Old Men in China are running a fascistoid operation)
Depends on your point of view. The State Owned Enterprises make up IIRC somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 of the economy. 20 years ago the State Owned Enterprises made up effectively 100% of the economy. That proportion continues to shrink as the Chinese economy expands, which is to say that the free market portion of the economy is growing while the State Owned is stagnant or shrinking. Certainly, China no longer has a centrally planned economy and prices are set almost exclusively by the international market.
The political deal has been since Tiananmen, the government largely leaves the population alone to get rich as long as the population accepts the government supremecy. While US headlines may give the impression that China is still a horribly repressive place, the general population rarely comes into contact with said repression.
The military’s proportion of the economy is shrinking as well. That is to say, that the enterprises controlled by the military have been reduced significantly and are still being divested. The deal was the government agreed to fund a smaller, modern military, and the military had to get out of business. I’ve seen numerous cases of the military selling out of hotels, apartment blocks, companies, etc.
The Chinese stock market is the largest in Asia after Japan by market capitalization.
As the general population makes more money, they have gained more freedom. People can afford lawyers now. The court system has improved (still has a long ways to go) and individuals do successfully sue the police, government bodies, etc. When the population is impoverished, they just have to take whatever the ruling cadres dictate. There are still huge abuses by cadres with power, but the point is that there are at least limited remedies these days.
Here’s a fun fact for you. For the first time in Chinese history, the peasants are no longer tied to the land. There are between 100-200 million peasants in a floating population. These people are outside of the traditional points of control as they are no longer on the land. They also earn money and gain experience, and for the first time ever the impoverished countryside is seeing an inflow of capital at the individual level.
Any of you thinking China is a stodgy old communist system can spend about 5 minutes in Shanghai to be thoroughly disproved of that notion.
JRDelicious – what dumping?
A quick search turned up this link:
http://www.greenpeace-china.org.hk/press/20010204_pr_02.html
A review of the tremendous damage done throughout previous regions of the Soviet Union (nuclear bomb manufacturing and test blast sites, Lake Bikal and toxic chemical waste dumps) makes it a fairly sure bet that the Chinese government has engaged in similar practices. Lack of accountability and thwarted investigative journalism all point up a strong probability of a similar mode of operation. I’ll try to get in some more searches.
PS: Hi, China Guy!
Hey Zenster. Wasn’t sure if it was refering to environmental dumping or economic/trade goods dumping?
No doubt, there are some pretty horrific environmental issues going on in China. I’ve seen some first hand, including clear cutting, and factories belching out serious pollutants. That said, environment concern is mounting. Same old trade off between local companies trying to make a quick buck, and the more powerful provincial/national authorities trying to stop the pollution.
I mentioned this on another thread, so apologies for the repetition.
Forget labels, and look at the actual power base.
Ruling party’s power base in the past: peasants, soldiers, industrial workers; intellectuals and merchants/entrepreneurs were persecuted.
Increasingly, the CCP’s power base is: merchants/entrepreneurs, soldiers and loyal intellectuals (especially scientists); peasants and workers are being encouraged to look after themselves; only those who directly challenge the (admittedly paranoid) party get persecuted.
The model is similar to the Latin American dictatorships - the ones Jean Kirkpatrick favoured as “authoritarian” rather than “totalitarian” (communist) back in the early 80s, though obviously China poses the US different strategic problems.
As the people get richer, the more they will resent the idea of power being centralised in the hands of a few autocrats. Being a nuclear power China needs internal constraints on the people who could lead the country into war.
However, OTOH, the richer people get, the more satisfied they will be and therefore the less likely they will be to want to disturb the status quo.
So we will either get a peaceful revolution, whereby the government implodes in upon itself (as in Soviet Russia or South Africa) or we will get some form of tolerated dictatorship.
Yes, this has been my assessment since I got here, too.
The PRC deputy-minister for the police had a death sentence for corruption commuted to 4 years by an appeal court recently. A public storm over the past few days - PRC newspapers are venting their spleen over the unfairness. Newspapers complaining about a failure by politically appointed judges to adhere to the rule of law? Amazing stuff, for China, compared to even 10 years ago.
You can also look at places like Taiwan and Singapore as a model. Singapore is hardly a democracy, but has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Actually, singapore would qualify quite well as a totalitarian police state.
Chinese professionals are coming back in droves. Most of whom do not have foreign passports but do have a form of permanent residency. They think there is more opportunity now and are not concerned about the lack of a second citizenship.
Dust off any communist definition, and I think China would fail.
ChinaGuy: ACK! the “dumping” bit should’ve not been there – it was part of a much longer original passage that I radically abbreviated (and yes, it was into the tree-hugger comment) :o
JRD
[sub]“JRDelicious”? :eek: why I never knew… [/sub]
I’m not saying this isn’t true, this just sounds SO wrong. Do you have a link anywhere for this? Standard of living is such a loose concept, do you have any exact definition?
Something happened to the China internet connection I think. Do a google search for Singapore GDP. Check out amnesty international for Singapore.
Hypothetical analogy, to illustrate the dilemma of he geriatric communiusts still rnning China.
Suppose, just for the sak ofargume, the Pope woke up one morning with the horrible realization, “There is no God. My religion is a sham, a lie.” What would the Pope do? Immediately announce that Christianity was a crock? Maybe…
But isn’t it more likely that he’d stop and wonder, "What happens to ME if I reject the CHurch’s very reaon for being? I’ll have no power, no income, no claim to respect, no NOTHING if I come out and disavow my faih. So, the Pope might conlude that, for his own self-interest, and for the sake of his own status and power, he HAS to go on pretending to believe in a philosophy he no longer takes seriously.
Wll, tat’s where the Chicoms find themselves. They KNOW Marxism was a fraud and a failure, and they KNOW that Charman Mao wasa murderous madman, and they KNOW they can never return to genuine communism. But they CAN’T ever diaow cmmuns the abstract, because that would eliminate the only justification they have for holding power.
things have speeded up. Here’s a link for 1999 GDP: http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/gdp_per_capita_0.html
1 Luxembourg $32,700
2 United States $31,500
3 Bermuda $30,000
4 Switzerland $26,400
5 Singapore $26,300
6 Hong Kong $25,100
7 Monaco $25,000
8 Norway $24,700
9 Cayman Islands $24,500
10 Belgium $23,400
11 Denmark $23,300
12 Japan $23,100
Here’s a link to amnesty international’s 2001 report on Singapore: http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webasacountries/SINGAPORE?OpenDocument