Mao's Legacy in China's Current
Development
A Chinese worker
said,”This is not socialism with Chinese characteristics as Deng Xiaoping
told us. Instead, what we have here is capitalism with Chinese
characteristics.”
A Chinese peasant said,
“When Chairman Mao warned us about the restoration of capitalism, we
really did not understand what he was talking about. Now we do.”
By Pao-Yu Ching
Posted by
Bulatlat
In China &
Socialism -- Market Reforms and Class Struggle[i],
Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett argued successfully why the
so-called “market socialism” in China is in fact the restoration of
capitalism, and that China’s economic Reform of the past twenty-five years
can not serve as a socialist model of development for other less developed
countries. Hart-Landsberg and Burkett’s research on this topic in current
literature (in English) is very thorough and includes perspectives from
the Left liberals and some progressives, who had mistaken China’s economic
development since the Reform as socialist. Hart-Landsberg and Burkett also
give a detailed and accurate account of the Reform itself from 1979 to the
present.
|
Workers in a factory
in Guangdong,
China strike over charges that their employer falsified medical
reports, March 2005 |
Hart-Landsberg and
Burkett give credible reports on how the capitalist restoration in China
has dismantled the social welfare system and other protections the working
population enjoyed before the Reform, and thus resulting their tremendous
hardships and sufferings. They also report how workers and peasants in
China have resisted the Reform, and the different ways by which they have
fought back.
Hart-Landsberg and
Burkett’s book and other studies listed in their references give us an
overview on the West’s (mostly the US) current debates on China’s Reform.
These debates are timely, because workers, peasants, and intellectuals in
China have themselves been actively engaging in similar debates.
However, I do not
agree with Hart-Landsberg and Burkett on their view expressed in the
“Historical Context for Post-Mao Economic Reform” (27-30); this view is
inaccurate and is inconsistent with the rest of their analysis. The
reasons Hart-Landsberg and Burkett state in the “historical context” for
the post-Mao Reform, are the very same excuses that Deng and his
supporters used to embark on their capitalist restoration. If we were to
agree with Hart-Landsberg and Burkett’s negative evaluation of the
socialist period (1949-1979), why would it even matter to those on the
Left, whether the current development in China is socialist or capitalist?
And more importantly, why would workers and peasants in China fight so
heroically in the last twenty-five years against the Reform that is
designed to deconstruct socialism?
Capitalism, as it has
developed in China in the two and half decades, has its distinguished
characteristics and is a product of China’s past: – the long feudal
history, over a century of foreign domination that condemned China to a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial status - and the 1949 revolution. The
radical changes in post-revolution society and the legacy of Mao stand out
as the most important factors affecting China’s current development. It
was the suffering endured and struggle engaged by the Chinese people from
1840 on that made the revolution of 1949 a reality. It is the legacy of
those years between 1949 and 1979 that has played a determinate role in
shaping China’s current development. Without an understanding of this time
period and the legacy it has left, it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to understand the current class struggle taking place in
China. China’s socialist past and Mao’s legacy makes its current situation
different from other less developed countries, and I believe it will
continue to have a dominant influence on its future development.
While Hart-Landsberg
and Burkett contribute much to our understanding of China’s development in
the past two and half decades, I believe they are mistaken in their
evaluation of China’s past. In response, this essay will discuss the
following: I) the origin of Deng’s Reform-using labor reform as an
example, II) Mao’s legacy, and III) the relevance of China from the Left
perspective.
I)
The Origin of Deng’s Reform – the Case of Labor Reform
Deng Xiaoping seized
power after Mao’s death and formally began his Reform after the Third
Plenary Session of the Eleventh Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in
December of 1978. When Hart-Landsberg and Burkett explain how Deng began
the Reform and how the capitalist restoration has continued for the past
twenty-five years, they searched for reasons beyond personal greed and
explained that the capitalist restoration, once started, generated
“structural contradictions” that have kept it going. We, of course, have
to look for reasons other than personal greed to explain the political,
economic, and social development in China or in any other countries;
however, Hart-Landsberg and Burkett seemed to imply that the Reformers did
not have a clear idea about their Reform programs and that they indeed
have been “crossing the river by touching the stones” – a famous saying of
Deng Xiaoping and – and once the Reform got started it seemed to generate
enough contradictions to keep it going.
However, if we look
into the history of struggle in China, we would reach a very different
conclusion. Deng’s Reform programs--the dismantling of the Commune, the
privatizing of state-owned enterprises, the Labor Reform, the opening up
of the economy to foreign investment, and many others--all have their
origins long before 1979. Deng and his predecessor and mentor, Liu Shaoqi,
tried repeatedly to institute these programs since the 1950’s. Therefore,
contrary to what Deng openly said, the Reform that began in 1979 not only
had a clear direction but also a well-planned road map.
One example of this
plan is the history of the post 1979 Labor Reform that Hart-Landsberg and
Burkett documented. Contract Labor instituted in 1986 was part of the
overall Labor Reform that abolished the permanent employment system in
State-owned enterprises, and it has its origin in the 1950’s. My co-author
and I wrote the following in “Labor Reform - Mao vs. Liu – Deng” in 1993:
...The Labor
Contract System, implemented since the beginning of the Reform, did not
originate with the current reformers. As early as the 1950's Liu Shaoqi
began advocating the advantages of the Contract Labor System. An essay
from the recently published Labor Contract System Handbook revealed the
history of Liu's attempts to institute temporary contract workers in state
owned factories.[ii]
The essay stated
that in 1956, Liu sent a team to the Soviet Union to study their labor
system. Upon its return, the team proposed the adoption of the Contract
Labor System modeled after what the Soviet Union had adopted. However,
when the changes were about to take place, the Great Leap Forward started,
thus interrupting its implementation. The essay continued in stating that
in the early 1960's Liu again attempted to change the permanent employment
status by adopting a "two-track system," enterprises were to employ more
temporary and fewer permanent workers, and the mines were to employ
peasants as temporary workers. Then, in 1965, the State Council announced
a new regulation on the employment of temporary workers, indicating that,
instead of permanent workers, more temporary workers should be hired. The
regulation also gave individual enterprises the authority to use allocated
wage funds to replace permanent workers with temporary workers. Again,
according to the author of this essay, the Cultural Revolution interrupted
Liu's effort to reform the labor system, and, in 1971, large numbers of
temporary workers were given permanent status. Although Liu could not
fully implement his labor reform, he had "experimental projects" going on
here and there, and before the Cultural Revolution began, large numbers of
temporary workers had been hired.[iii]
The author of Labor
Contract System Handbook expressed his regrets that these earlier efforts
to institute labor reform failed, and he stated that if there had not been
the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, it would have been
possible to carry out these Labor Reform long before the current time.
In fact, Liu-Deng and
their allies had a plan to develop capitalism in China since the 1950’s.
The afore-mentioned Labor Reform was only one of the many projects they
prepared to carry out. Their plan to develop capitalism in China before
1979 consisted of projects to be implemented in every economic, political,
social, and cultural sphere. This short essay only allows a brief
discussion of one of many projects. The purpose of this discussion is to
show the current class struggle in China so carefully documented by Hart-Landsberg
and Burkett has its origin. From what to be discussed below, it is not
difficult to understand from this one example of Labor Reform how Deng’s
Reform was diametrically opposed to that of Mao’s. That was and is the
precise reason for the past and current class struggles in China.
II.
Mao’s Legacy
As Deng and his
supporters began their 1979 Reform, they denounced China’s mass movements
in general and the Cultural Revolution in particular. The Reformers
attributed, though not openly, what they called the “calamity” of the
Cultural Revolution to Mao’s declining years, implying that the aging Mao
could no longer think clearly. At that time, they were not yet questioning
Mao’s many other contributions before 1966. As the Reform gathered steam
in the 1980s, Deng and his supporters began attacking the Great Leap
Forward, the formation of Communes, as well as the 1956 transfer of
ownership of the means of production in industries to the State. Their
attacks also included the permanent employment system in State-owned
enterprises. For awhile, the attack, though not openly, went as far back
as the Land Reform (1949-1953); therefore, limiting Mao’s contribution
solely to his role in winning the Chinese Revolution in 1949.[iv]
What has been most
interesting, however, is that while denouncing all the major achievements
during the socialist period, and eagerly demonstrating how they had hurt
China’s economic development, to this day, the Reformer have never been
able to publicly denounce Mao. The reason is that those who have hold
power in China since the Reform fully realize the prestige and admiration
Mao has among the broad masses, so they put him up on a pedestal while
denounce everything he represents. Mao’s portrait still hangs in the most
prominent place in Tiananmen Square, in all public offices, factories and
schools. On the other hand, workers and peasants have shown their genuine
love and respect for Mao by hanging Mao’s portrait in their homes.
Recently, more and more people, including some lower level government
officials, are wearing Mao’s button to show their allegiance to Mao.[v]
So what exactly is
Mao’s legacy, and why has Mao become more popular today after two and half
decades of Reform? Why have the Reformers been so eager to denounce all
mass movements, particularly the Cultural Revolution?
These questions can
be answered by going back to examine how class struggles played out in
China before 1979. In the example shown above, Liu’s Labor Reform was
blocked more than once by the mass movements. In addition to mass
movements, there were also other positive steps taken to resist Liu’s
effort to institute changes in employment policies of State enterprises.
Positive steps taken to reform the labor system in State enterprises aimed
at phasing out wage labor as the long-term goal when eventually labor
power would cease to be a commodity. Here again, in “Labor Reform - Mao
vs. Liu – Deng”:
As opposed to
Liu's attempts to institute contract labor, the Anshan Constitution was
the most serious attempt made to change the organization of work and the
labor process in the work place. The workers of the Anshan Metallurgical
Combine took the initiative to lay out new rules to change the existing
operation of their work place. On March 22, 1960, Mao proclaimed that
these new rules should be used as guidelines for the operation of state
enterprises, and named them the Anshan Constitution. The Anshan
Constitution contains the most fundamental elements as well as concrete
steps in revolutionizing work organization and the labor process of state
owned enterprises. There are five principles in the Anshan Constitution:
(1) put politics in command, (2) strengthen the party leadership, (3)
launch vigorous mass movement, (4) systematically promote the
participation of cadres in productive labor and of workers in management,
and (5) reform any unreasonable rules, assure close cooperation among
workers, cadres, and technicians, and energetically promote technical
revolution.[vi]
The principles in the Anshan Constitution represent a spirit, which lead
toward the direction of eventually phasing out the wage labor.[vii]
In the essay, we went
on to say that before the Cultural Revolution began, factories only paid
lip service to the Anshan Constitution. Management in State-owned
factories did not see any need to change and workers were rather passive;
they were content with their State endowed privileges and benefits and
assumed that the conditions of their employment were there to stay. In
addition, we stated that the political struggle within the Chinese
Communist Party during this period over the direction of the transition
was reflected in the factory by changes in wage and employment policies:
At times, policies
issued from above pushed the implementation of the piece wage rate and
expanded the employment of temporary workers. Then, often during mass
movements, these policies were criticized and reversed. Before the
Cultural Revolution, however, workers did not comprehend the reasons
behind these reversals of policies. They were not aware that Liu had made
numerous attempts to abolish permanent employment status. Without the
Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Liu and his supporters
might have succeeded in their attempts to repeal the laws that protected
the state employees. If that had been the case, permanent employment
status and other benefits endowed to state employees might have become
history decades ago. When workers participated in the mass movements in
the 1950's and 60's, their class consciousness was gradually raised; but
workers did not realize, until the Cultural Revolution, that class
struggle continued after the judicial transfer of the ownership of the
means of production to the state. It was during the Cultural Revolution --
a period of intensive political struggle in the factory and in society at
large -- that many crucial issues were raised.[viii]
Workers and cadres
openly discussed and debated many other important issues relating to wages
and benefits and labor processes in factories, such as material
incentives, cadres' participation in production work, workers'
participation in management, and what constituted unreasonable rules and
regulations. Through these debates, State enterprise workers grasped the
meaning of “putting politics in command” and other principles in the
Anshan Constitution.
The kind of labor
system a socialist country adopts is only one of many major issues
regarding the direction and nature of a socialist vs. capitalist
transition. Questions regarding the transition’s direction existed before
1979 and they still exist in all political, economic, social, and cultural
spheres in China today. While this short essay does not allow a more
comprehensive overall analysis, we can understand how programs in
transition toward socialism are diametrically opposed to programs in
transition toward capitalism from the example of the labor reform.
Programs, or
projects, in transition toward socialism are completely different from the
programs in transition toward capitalism, as are the methods of
implementing them. During the socialist period, programs were carried out
by mass line and often through mass movements. The meaning of mass line is
rather simple. It means involving those who are directly affected by the
program. When policies were formulated, cadres were urged to talk to the
masses, take surveys, or even live with them for periods of time. When
policies were implemented, cadres engaged the masses in discussions,
debates, campaigns, and protests. All major changes in China during
1949-1979, including the Land Reform, were accomplished through mass
campaigns/movements. In the past, mass movements provided the only
opportunity for the masses to validate government policies. Policies so
validated by the masses had a better chance to succeed.[ix]
Clearly, however,
there were plenty of cases, when “mass line” in practice did not match the
ideal described. Instead of soliciting opinions and ideas from the masses,
cadres often saw themselves as carrying out orders from above. Whenever
cadres failed to follow the mass line, commandism and bureaucracy
inevitably occurred.[x]
In the past, mass
movement was also a vehicle for the appropriation of new ideology. During
Land Reform the new appropriated ideology was: “It is wrong for landlords
to take rent (the product of the peasants’ labor) from the peasants. Rent
is a form of exploitation.” Using mass movements to appropriate new
ideology helped turn the logic of exploitation upside down and gave moral
validity to policies that would right past wrongs. It is not unlike what
anti-war demonstrations have done in the past three years to undo the
logic of the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The only
difference is that the ideology appropriated during China’s past mass
movements came directly from the center of power while the ideology of the
anti-war demonstration came from the protesters themselves. Critics charge
that during mass movements, ideas were often imposed from the top, and
such ideas had little relevance to the problems and concerns of the
masses. It is a valid criticism in that workers and peasants oftentimes
had a difficult time grasping the meaning of ideas, if they were detached
from their reality, let alone adopting or owning them. This happened
during the latter part of the Cultural Revolution and possibly happened in
other mass movements as well. When it did happen, open discussion and
debate disappeared and indoctrination set in, discarding the practice of
the “mass line”.[xi]
However, overall,
mass movements during 1949-78 politicized the Chinese population. One of
the most important legacies of Mao is that he believed that mass
participation is the only way to prevent the party bureaucrats from
hijacking the transition and turning it to capitalist without workers’ and
peasants’ knowledge and resistance. With the practice of initiating mass
movements, Mao was able to communicate his beliefs to the masses at large
in the process.
In contrast, all of
the Reform programs since 1979 were implemented by passing laws and
issuing decrees/regulations strictly from above. In the early stages of
the Reform, the Reformers introduced material incentives, such as piece
wage rate and bonuses, because Deng and other Reformers believed that
material incentive would increase competition among workers, thus
promoting efficiency and productivity. Workers in State enterprises,
however, were very suspicious, because using piece wage rate and bonuses
to increase the pace and intensity of work were not new to them. They
decided to resist the piece wage rate and, instead of competing for the
bonuses, they shared this the extra pay more or less equally (allowing for
small differences based on seniority). They used the bonus money instead
to compensate for the loss of purchasing power due to inflation. Deng and
other Reformers could not, as long as the workers were able to resist,
change the culture of cooperation to the cultural of competition by simply
issuing decrees and passing laws from above. Workers knew enough not to
take the bribe.
Obviously, the
Reformers would not dream of getting workers’ support through discussion
and debates; clearly the programs they wanted to implement would take away
workers’ rights to work, wages and benefits, and to make decisions about
work rules and voice their opinions in the factories. How could any worker
be expected to support programs that are designed to intensify their own
exploitation and lower their political, economic, and social status to
that of wage labor?
While workers and
cadres discussed and debated issues such as material incentives, employing
temporary workers, and the Anshan constitution in factories, in the
countryside, commune members discussed and debated other issues, such as
breaking up the Communes by contracting land to individual peasants.
Through these discussions and debates, major issues regarding the
direction of the transition became clear. These debates reflected the
contradictions of the time, and those contradictions reached a new height
during the Cultural Revolution, when the class struggle became fierce,
resulting occasionally in fights and even violence.
Any evaluation of the Cultural Revolution must be grounded in this
reality. If the Cultural Revolution had not taken place, Liu-Deng and
their supporters would have been able to carry out their capitalist
programs in the 1960’s instead of the 1980’s. Attempt to evaluate the
Cultural Revolution without recognizing the fierce struggle at that
juncture of China’s post revolution society would mistakenly lead us to
the Right’s assertion, that it was a political move by Mao based on a
personal vendetta against his opponents in the Chinese Party out of sheer
madness and desperation. An increasing number of people in China are now
rejecting the authority’s interpretation of the Cultural Revolution, and
many have come to understand that, although the Cultural Revolution had
its excesses and mistakes (all of which require careful investigation) it
was, as Mao said and now many in China have come to agree, a practice or
an exercise to prepare for the real struggle that was to come.
The transformation of
China's proletariat and peasants in the previous three decades before the
Reform, although still in its beginning stages, was significant. When the
Reform began, although workers and peasants did not have a good
understanding of what a full pledged capitalist restoration would be like,
they did not face Deng’s Reform with total ignorance. They understood the
issues and were equipped with the experiences accumulated from past
struggles. The class struggles described by Hart-Landsberg and Burkett,
are in fact a continuation of the struggles of the past. The Reformers
have good reason to denounce all past mass movements and prohibit any new
ones from taking place. Deng and his supporters firmly believed that the
demonstrations in major cities all over China in the spring 1989 had to be
suppressed by any means necessary. The bloody suppression sent a chilling
message to those who thought that open demonstration, like mass movements
of the past, could be an avenue to express their frustrations and vent
their anger.
As stated above, one
of Mao’s most important legacies is that through mass movements, people
become politicized. People of all walks of life had and still have much to
say about government polices. But China’s current regime has gathered
tight control over the press and other forms of mass media; unlike the
past, where people could freely express their opinions in big character
posters (dazibao) the Chinese people in the past two and half decades have
not had means of open expression.[xii]
Without any means to openly express themselves, people have found
ingenious ways to let voices be heard. One popular method is making up
verses and sayings and circulating them privately. Most of these
verses/sayings creatively speak the minds of those who made them up, as
well as those who pass them on so they can be widely circulated. Some of
them are very long and complex – here are two short ones that have
remained popular:
On corrupted
government officials: “If you were to line up all the high level
government officials and shoot every other one you would still let many
guilty ones go free.”
On smashing the
iron rice bowl: “Chairman Mao gave us a rice bowl, Deng Xiaoping drilled a
hole in it, the capitalists connected a siphoning tube to the hole, and
Jiang Zemin shattered the bowl into pieces.”
When Deng said that
the Reformers were “crossing the river by touching the stones,” he tried
to impress on those who clearly remembered Deng’s line in the past, and
how it had been criticized. It seemed to be a deliberate effort on Deng’s
part to imply that the Reformers did not have a set of well thought out
programs to implement. Thus, there was no need for people to be alarmed.
Another saying of Deng’s is “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black of
white. If it catches mice, it’s a good cat.” The black cat vs. white cat
saying sent the message that politics does not really matter what's
important is that the Reform will develop the productive forces and raise
people’ standard of living. The Reformers used these sayings as a ploy to
deemphasize “politics in command” and “class struggle is the key link”. At
the same time, they have carried out the fiercest whole scale class
struggle against the workers and peasants. I think it is rather
interesting to observe how the Left in the United States in recent years
has tried many ways to politicize the general public without much success,
while the current regime in China has tried their best to de-politicize
the Chinese population – their efforts have not been very successful
either.
III. The Relevance of China from the Left Perspective.
The representatives
of international monopoly capital obviously think China is relevant. They
set China up as, in the words of Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, their “poster
country” for good reasons. In an era of global crisis and economic
stagnation, China has become one country where the economic growth rates
have stayed high. Multinational corporations have profited from China by
investing their surplus capital and exploiting its cheap labor. Deng’s
Reform to open up China to foreign goods and investments, and China
further liberalizing its economy since its accession into the WTO, came at
an opportune time for global monopoly capital. They seized the time to
expand to this large piece of virgin land and into what they see as a
gargantuan market for their surplus products.
Moreover, the
development in China in the past two and half decades has been relevant
ideologically to the representatives of the global capital and the ruling
class in imperialist countries. The scholars on the Right regard China as
one more piece of evidence in their argument that capitalism has won and
that history has indeed come to an end. They argue that China abandoned
socialism and embraced capitalism to save itself from its turbulent past
that left its economy in ruins. Since the Right conveniently possesses the
power to interpret freedom and democracy, they have further asserted that
capitalism will eventually bring freedom and democracy to the Chinese
people.
The question then is:
Why should China be relevant to the Left?
After China was on
its way to restore capitalism and the former Soviet Union and Eastern
European countries collapsed, many on the Left lost their confidence that
socialism would one day replace capitalism. The Right, on the other hand,
had a well-planned strategy to aggressively attack and discredit socialism
and proclaimed the triumph of capitalism at a moment when capitalism
itself was in deep crisis. In the West, most on the Left had a difficult
time defending those former socialist countries; they also had trouble
explaining why attempts to institute socialism ended so disastrously. Some
on the Left, however, did offer some explanations.
In May 1998 the
Monthly Review published a special issue commemorating the 150 year
anniversary of the Communist Manifesto, which included an article written
by Ellen Meiksins Wood --“The Communist Manifesto After 150 Years.”[xiii]
In her article Wood returned to Marx’s manifesto to explain the historic
“failures” of socialism. She said, “...[W]e should not underestimate the
significance of his [Marx’s] assumption that a socialist revolution would
be most likely to succeed in the context of a more advanced capitalism. In
that sense, it could be argued that the ultimate failure of the Russian
revolution, which occurred in the absence of those preconditions,
fulfilled his predictions all too well”[xiv].
(Note: Three of us disagreed with her analysis and conclusions and we
responded by writing a letter to the Monthly Review editors. I am
integrating portions of that letter below.)
Wood’s article
represented a good number of people on the Left, who were at a loss to
defend the former socialist countries. Since they felt defenseless from
the vicious attacks of the Right, they tried to disassociate and unburden
themselves from the histories and realities of those countries. In making
that choice, they also disassociated themselves from the heroic struggles
of the Russian people in winning the revolution, the liberation of Russian
people after the revolution, and the achievements made in the early
decades of the Soviet Union. They relieved themselves of the burden of
explaining or understanding how and why so called communist leaders
betrayed the revolution, why a country that began with such great hopes,
degenerated into the conditions that we all witnessed, until its final
collapse.
Wood chose to explain
the failure of socialism by asserting that the former socialist countries
did not meet what she called “Marx’s prerequisites for a transition from
capitalism to socialism...” – an assertion with some rather serious
implications. One of these implications is that all former attempts to
develop socialism were doomed to fail from the beginning, because those
countries did not meet the prerequisites set forth by Marx. It’s
unfortunate then, that people in the past did not understand Marx’s
prerequisites, and as a consequence sacrificed their lives for an
unattainable goal. It also implies that oppressed people living in less
developed countries today, would do well to learn from the mistakes made
by revolutionaries in the past and not to engage in any revolutionary
struggles lest they repeat them. If we were to believe her analysis and
conclusions, then this argument would have the same impact as arguments
made by the Right, who debunk Marxism and socialism as utopian dreams.
We responded in our
letter:
What Marx did not
foresee was the emergence of imperialism. Its dominance changed the
landscape… For the most part, imperialism does not develop the productive
forces in its “client” countries. In countries such as the Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico (to name a few), there is no illusion that
the exploitation of their labor forces and natural resources will lead to
any kind of advanced capitalist development. They are merely pools of
disposable workers for low skill, low pay jobs in factories and in fertile
fields that agribusiness seized and converted from sustainable agriculture
to huge cash crops. The factories manufacture goods and the plantations
grow food for export that the native people cannot use or afford. They are
environmental dumping grounds that are destroying the land, water, and
air. Marx’s prediction about capitalism developing productive forces can
only be taken in context of the time in which he wrote, and reexamined in
the context of the world today. But, as it is laid out in the context of
his other work, culminating in his masterpiece Das Capital, his overall
analysis of capitalism is still dead on.
[xv]
Why then, did the
Soviet Union collapse? Why is China restoring capitalism? These are heavy
questions, ones that require further study of concrete history. The lack
of advanced capitalist development in those countries may well have been a
factor. It is not, however, the only nor most important one. It is of the
utmost important for the Left to study and to analyze the reasons behind
the failures to attempt to build socialism. The Left in China are already
engaged in analyzing why a system that benefited so many people could be
so “peacefully” transformed.
If the Left in the
West indeed believes that the development of productive forces is the
precondition for socialism, what should the Left tell people in the less
developed world, who have suffered even more severely in the past two and
half decades, when imperialist countries with the help of international
financial and trade organizations, shifted the burden of global crisis to
them through so called globalization? Should the Left in the West tell
them not to move forward, even when the conditions for revolution already
exist? Should they hold off any actions because according to Marx they
have not yet met the preconditions for socialist transition, and so they
should wait for their brothers and sisters in the advanced countries to
take the lead?
Later we were
encouraged to read Harry Magdoff write -- “A Note on the Communist
Manifesto” in the same issue:
...in view of the
way capitalism has spread throughout the world... it is essential that the
vision of socialism focus on a social transformation which will put first
and foremost: the empowerment and meeting the basic human needs of the
poorest, the most oppressed, and disadvantaged.[xvi]
The Chinese people,
before the 1949 revolution were among the poorest, the most oppressed, and
disadvantaged. Chinese peasants suffered thousands of years under the
cruel land tenure system of feudalism, that entitled landlords to take all
(if not more) of the agricultural surpluses through exorbitant rent on
their land and usury interests on their loans. In more recent history, the
Chinese people suffered more than one hundred years of war imposed upon
them by imperialist aggressors. The 1911 revolution, led by the
bourgeoisie, did not terminate the land tenure system, nor did it lead to
any economic development. China remained weak and defenseless against
foreign aggression. The founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921
brought hope to the China. The Chinese people, under the leadership of CCP
in a coalition with the Kuomingtang (KMT), fought eight long years against
Japanese invasion and occupation and finally won the war against Japan in
1945.
In June 1945, on the
eve of the victory against Japan, Mao wrote “The Foolish Old Man who Moved
the Mountains.” He used an old Chinese folklore as a metaphor, showing the
Chinese people that the two big mountains blocking their way and pressing
down upon them were imperialism and feudalism. He urged the Chinese people
to learn from the foolish old man who proved that he could move the two
mountains, one shovelful at a time, to work as diligently to dig their way
out from under the oppression of these two big mountains.[xvii]
In the next four
years, the Chinese people, under the leadership of the CCP, won the
revolution. And during the 30 years of socialist construction that
followed, China was able to achieve rapid development in agriculture,
industry, transport, and construction. The annual growth rate for
agriculture, industry and transport, and construction grew at the average
rates of 3.4%, 9.4% and 10.7%, respectively during the period of 1952 and
1978.[xviii]
China was able to
develop both its heavy and light industries and lay the foundation for
long-term and sustainable growth. It achieved in those thirty years, a
balanced growth between industry and agriculture, so that the peasants’
standard of living in the countryside, though still behind urban
residents, improved, narrowing the gap between the two. The peasants
worked extremely hard to build the foundation of agriculture, including
irrigation and drainage systems, basic infrastructure such as roads and
bridges, and land conservation and improvement. The State also gradually
reduced agricultural taxes, improving the terms of trade in favor of the
agricultural sector, and increased State investment in large agricultural
infrastructure, such as the Red Flag Canal and Yellow River Project among
many others.
One of the most
important accomplishments in those 30 years, was that by the end of the
1970’s, even though China was still a poor country, it was able to raise
the welfare of its population at large. In that relatively short span of
time, indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality, nutrition
levels, and literacy rates in China, were closer to those of developed
countries than of the underdeveloped countries.[xix]
China was able to make those accomplishments in the most unfavorable and
hostile international environment. China developed its economy by relying
on its internal savings, without any outside help.[xx]
During those years, China was under an economic embargo by the United
States and other Western countries. Moreover, China had to spend a lot of
its scarce resources to build its military defenses, as it faced constant
military threats during the twenty years between the Korean War and the
Vietnam War.
Some may argue that
the China has achieved even higher rates of economic growth in the
post-Reform years.xxi In addition to the question of who has actually
benefited from the high rates of growth, China’s current development is
unsustainable. The high rates of growth, on the one hand, were generated
by large sums of foreign investment, in the magnitude of $50 billion a
year, for the past few years. Foreign investment coupled with government
investment in infrastructure, buildings and industries has been used to
combat recession in the few years after 1998 and has created excess
capacity of over 90% of China’s industries.[xxii]
[xxiii] In 1995 excess capacity for bicycles, color TV’s, washing
machines, and air-conditioners, was 45%, 54%, 57% and 70%, respectively.
Moreover, China’s overwhelming dependence on exports for growth can no
longer continue. European Union and Japanese economies are stagnated and
US trade deficits (one third of which is with China), which have been
financed entirely by external borrowing, has reached an alarming level;
China’s exports will soon run out of places to go. China’s financial
institutions, heavily burdened by bad debts, are very fragile and will
have to face increasing competition from foreign banks in China. The real
estate bubble in China’s big cities looks increasingly like those
experienced by the Southeast Asia countries in the late 1990s. Even some
mainstream economists agree that the crisis is China is inevitable.
Hart-Landsberg and
Burkett accurately stated that China’s development since the Reform cannot
serve as a model for other less developed countries. The crisis when it
does occur in China will further destroy the myth that in the long run a
country can depend on export to develop its economy. However, China’s
revolutionary victory against imperialism and the socialist development in
the thirty years that followed, served and still serves as a model of
development for other Third World countries. The Chinese people under
Mao’s leadership did remove the two big mountains pressing down on them,
and in the process they empowered themselves. Workers who have been
laid-off or forced into retirement in China today still say with full
knowledge and confidence, “We built this country. We have a glorious past.
No one can deny that.” For these reasons China’s socialist development is
relevant to the poorest, the most oppressed, and disadvantaged people of
the world and, therefore, should be relevant to the Left.
In conclusion, Deng’s
Reform programs implemented since 1979 have their origins in the previous
socialist period. The legacies from the socialist period have not only
shaped China’s current development – they will continue to play a dominant
role in China’s future, as well as the futures of many other countries,
where the poorest, most oppressed and disadvantaged people are engaging in
their struggles against imperialism and capitalism. It has been in Marx’s
name and with Marx’s teaching, the workers and peasants in China and
elsewhere brought about and will continue to bring great changes and
progress. It is their achievements that have made the Communist Manifesto
worth celebrating after 157 years. As Mao said, “The road has many twists
and turns but the future is bright.”
=============
[i] Martin Hart-Landsberg and
Paul Burkett, China & Socialism -- Market Reforms and Class Struggle,
Monthly Review Press, 2005, first published in Monthly Review, July-August
2004.
[ii] "The History of Our Contract
Labor.
System" in Labor Contract System Handbook edited by Liu Chiang-tan,
Science Publisher, 1987, pp. 1-18.
[iii] D. Y. Hsu and P. Y. Ching,
“Labor Reform : Mao vs. Liu-Deng,” in Mao Zedong Thought Lives, Vol. I,
Center for Social Studies & New Road Publications, 1995, pp. 189-190.
[iv] Some pro Reform scholars in
the West quickly supported this unofficial view held by the Reformers One
good example is: Chinese Village, Socialist State,(Yale University Press,
1991) written by Edward Friedman, Paul Pickowicz, Mark Seldon and Kay
Johnson.
[v] Taxi drivers have for a long
time have displayed Mao’s photo on their rear view mirrors as good luck
charms. The more recent wearing Mao’s button seems to be more political
indicating that people want to show that they are taking a pro Mao stand.
In addition, revolutionary songs and films including the ones from the
period of the Cultural Revolution have also become popular.
[vi] See Charles Bettelheim,
Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China, Monthly Review
Press, 1974.
[vii] D. Y. Hsu and P.Y. Ching,
“Labor Reform: Mao vs. Liu-Deng,” in Mao Zedong Thought Lives, Vol. I,
Center for Social Studies & New Road Publications, 1995, p. 190.
[viii] Ibid., p.191.
[ix] D. Y. Hsu and P.Y. Ching,
“Mass Movement” Mao’s Socialist Strategy for Change.” in Mao Zedong
Thought Lives, Vol. I, Center for Social Studies & New Road Publications,
1995.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] When the Reformer amended
the Chinese Constitution in 1979 to abolish workers’ right to strike they
also abolished peoples’ right to freedom of expression, namely the four
da’s: daming, dafang, dabianlun, and dazebao (big openness, big voice, big
debates, and big character posters.)
[xiii] Ellen Meiksins Wood, “The
Communist Manifesto After 150 Years”, Monthly Review, May 1998, pp. 14-35.
[xiv] Ibid., 29.
[xv] Dao-yuan Chou, Fred Engst,
and Pao-yu Ching, Response to Ellen Meiksins Wood’s article “The Communist
Manifesto After 150 Years,” Monthly Review, May 1998, pp. 14-35.
[xvi] Harry Magdoff, “A Note on
the Communist Manifesto,” Monthly Review, May 1998, p.13.
[xvii] Mao Zedong, “The Foolish
Old Man who Moved the Mountains,” in Selected Works of Mao Zedong,
Peoples’ Publishing Co., 1964, pp. 1101-1104. Another version of “the
Foolish Old Man who removed he mountains has three mountains and the third
one was bureaucratic capitalism.
[xviii] Thomas Rawski, Economic
Growth and Employment in China, Oxford University Press, 1979.
[xix] Sidel, Ruth and Victor W.
Sidel, The Health of China, Beacon Press, 1982.
[xx] Soviet Union pulled back its
original aid projects after the ideological disputes between China and the
Soviet Union began. China had since paid back all loans extended by the
Soviet Union.
[xxi] According to some
estimates, the official rates of growth posted by Chinese officials are
overstated. The World Bank estimated that the real rate of growth between
1978 and 1995 was 1.2% below the official figure. Research published by
OECD estimated China’s growth rate in 1986-1994 was only 6%. See Nicholas
R. Lardy, Integrating China into the Global Economy, (Brookings
Institution Press, 2002) pp. 11-15 for further discussion.
[xxii] New York Times Magazine,
July 4, 2004, p. 30.
[xxiii] China’s Industrial
Development Report, 2003, p. 27.
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2005 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.