As I understand it, capitalism is used a tool by the Chinese planned economy to increase the power and well-being of the socialist state. It is kept locked in a cage and beaten down when it steps out of line. Deng realized the inherent growth and power of that growth that capitalism inherently espouses, and manipulated it. Truly bringing about a successful (ongoing) transitional phase from one to the other.
I would say it’s more that by providing a controlled space for Capitalism to grow, the Chinese economy has allowed Capitalism to entangle its own success with that of Chinese Socialism. That entanglement was profitable, therefore irresistible for Capital. I know we are saying the same thing, but I’d like to specify that Capitalism doesn’t have inherent growth, it requires room to grow, because it can be quite destructive to protect itself within a confined system.
Completely false. The economy of the People’s Republic of China is not a planned economy - the vast majority of its economy is under the control of private corporations, and is not subject to government planning. Capitalism is not “locked in a cage” in China, for Capitalism is locking China in a cage, via constant labour abuses, extremely poor working conditions, plutocratic rule, ect. Furthermore, the “Communist” Party of China has no plans to recreate a planned economy, nor Socialism. In short, China is undergoing an NEP (state-capitalism) without end.
I believe this is the philosophy of liberalism. They say capitalism can be useful but the state must keep it in check. As long as government can ultimately keep the reins on capitalism and under control, you get the optimum prosperity and social welfare. China experienced great economic growth when it turned to economic liberalism.
The liberal/socialist dichotomy can’t be applied fruitfully to China. It’s a nation with a DOTP, led by the CPC, with an economy that is being constructed in a socialist way, that is China has capitalist dictatorship over large swathes of the means of production, and the CPC and ergo the proletariat are engaging in protracted class warfare with targeted nationalizations after an industry reaches the form of monopoly or a focus on infinite growth. This is why Chinese Marxists call it socialist construction rather than admitting to having achieved a socialist society. SOEs and private capital are battling for supremacy, and the CPC is utilizing those private industries to achieve national growth and national rejuvenation – letting their productive forces reach their limits prior to the stage of engaging in imperial extraction – and then socializing them.
There are sectors of China, namely the capitalists and rightists, that are attempting to steer China in the direction of infinite growth, monopoly, and imperialism. The CPC, and the political dictatorship of the proletariat, are there to struggle fiercely against them and socialize their resources whenever they have reached the highest stage of production they can vis a vi capitalist control. It’s disingenous to suggest that China’s economy is necessarily socialist or capitalist or liberal or whatever, its economy is a battlefield where class war is constantly being waged through nationalizations, asset seizures, executions, state-supported workers’ movements and protests, etc. Dialectics are at play here, with capitalism and socialism struggling for supremacy. Under the leadership of the CPC, socialism is winning, albeit perhaps more slowly than some would like.
Thanks comrade. Monthly Review really opened my eyes on China when I was calling myself a Maoist. They consider themselves “new left” (they’re sort of eclectic) but they have great pieces detailing how the CPC supports worker movements as well as why China is considered a semi-periphery country when it comes to questions of capital accumulation and imperialism.
What your describing is more akin to social democracy. Economic liberalism is free markets, little regulations on private activity, free trade, free commerce, little worker rights or bargaining power and very active private influence in the state. That isn’t really at all comparable to china. The most comparable system to modern china is the Soviet NEP (New economic policy), where private industry is used to absorb foreign investment and Garner greater cooperation with the mostly capitalist global economy. This was dumped by the soviets in favor of “socialism in one country”, a more autarkic model that is much less reliant on foreign trade and cooperation. I’m not going to argue which is better, that’s a long discussion for another day. But this is exactly what path china has taken since deng. China connecting it’s economy to global commerce isn’t economic liberalism. SOEs and private companies are used to absorb foreign investment, and that investment is used to rapidly grow the economy. In a capitalist economically liberal china, that investment would be used to make the private barons richer and would be the sole property of those private barons, at the expense of the rest of the population. Instead, in china, that wealth is used to fund state owned industry and projects, as well as public services. Private industry is just bait, that’s all they are, pawns of the state that exist to bait in investment from foreign conglomerates that would never invest in state owned or state operated industry. Private industry in china is held on an incredibly tight leash, much harsher than any country in the globe that allows the private sector to exist. Private industry is only allowed to operate in a limited amount of fields, and is only allowed to operate in SEZs (special economic zones) designated by the government. This has been very successful for china, and if any self described economic liberals learned about how the Chinese economy operated, they would immediately lambast it as evil communism and would not at all come to the conclusion that capitalism or economic liberalism has been beneficial to china.
As I understand it, capitalism is used a tool by the Chinese planned economy to increase the power and well-being of the socialist state. It is kept locked in a cage and beaten down when it steps out of line. Deng realized the inherent growth and power of that growth that capitalism inherently espouses, and manipulated it. Truly bringing about a successful (ongoing) transitional phase from one to the other.
I would say it’s more that by providing a controlled space for Capitalism to grow, the Chinese economy has allowed Capitalism to entangle its own success with that of Chinese Socialism. That entanglement was profitable, therefore irresistible for Capital. I know we are saying the same thing, but I’d like to specify that Capitalism doesn’t have inherent growth, it requires room to grow, because it can be quite destructive to protect itself within a confined system.
That’s totally fair and what I was trying to say, I think I just said what I meant poorly lol
Completely false. The economy of the People’s Republic of China is not a planned economy - the vast majority of its economy is under the control of private corporations, and is not subject to government planning. Capitalism is not “locked in a cage” in China, for Capitalism is locking China in a cage, via constant labour abuses, extremely poor working conditions, plutocratic rule, ect. Furthermore, the “Communist” Party of China has no plans to recreate a planned economy, nor Socialism. In short, China is undergoing an NEP (state-capitalism) without end.
Du er en idiot
I believe this is the philosophy of liberalism. They say capitalism can be useful but the state must keep it in check. As long as government can ultimately keep the reins on capitalism and under control, you get the optimum prosperity and social welfare. China experienced great economic growth when it turned to economic liberalism.
The liberal/socialist dichotomy can’t be applied fruitfully to China. It’s a nation with a DOTP, led by the CPC, with an economy that is being constructed in a socialist way, that is China has capitalist dictatorship over large swathes of the means of production, and the CPC and ergo the proletariat are engaging in protracted class warfare with targeted nationalizations after an industry reaches the form of monopoly or a focus on infinite growth. This is why Chinese Marxists call it socialist construction rather than admitting to having achieved a socialist society. SOEs and private capital are battling for supremacy, and the CPC is utilizing those private industries to achieve national growth and national rejuvenation – letting their productive forces reach their limits prior to the stage of engaging in imperial extraction – and then socializing them.
There are sectors of China, namely the capitalists and rightists, that are attempting to steer China in the direction of infinite growth, monopoly, and imperialism. The CPC, and the political dictatorship of the proletariat, are there to struggle fiercely against them and socialize their resources whenever they have reached the highest stage of production they can vis a vi capitalist control. It’s disingenous to suggest that China’s economy is necessarily socialist or capitalist or liberal or whatever, its economy is a battlefield where class war is constantly being waged through nationalizations, asset seizures, executions, state-supported workers’ movements and protests, etc. Dialectics are at play here, with capitalism and socialism struggling for supremacy. Under the leadership of the CPC, socialism is winning, albeit perhaps more slowly than some would like.
This is a great description. Good post.
Thanks comrade. Monthly Review really opened my eyes on China when I was calling myself a Maoist. They consider themselves “new left” (they’re sort of eclectic) but they have great pieces detailing how the CPC supports worker movements as well as why China is considered a semi-periphery country when it comes to questions of capital accumulation and imperialism.
What your describing is more akin to social democracy. Economic liberalism is free markets, little regulations on private activity, free trade, free commerce, little worker rights or bargaining power and very active private influence in the state. That isn’t really at all comparable to china. The most comparable system to modern china is the Soviet NEP (New economic policy), where private industry is used to absorb foreign investment and Garner greater cooperation with the mostly capitalist global economy. This was dumped by the soviets in favor of “socialism in one country”, a more autarkic model that is much less reliant on foreign trade and cooperation. I’m not going to argue which is better, that’s a long discussion for another day. But this is exactly what path china has taken since deng. China connecting it’s economy to global commerce isn’t economic liberalism. SOEs and private companies are used to absorb foreign investment, and that investment is used to rapidly grow the economy. In a capitalist economically liberal china, that investment would be used to make the private barons richer and would be the sole property of those private barons, at the expense of the rest of the population. Instead, in china, that wealth is used to fund state owned industry and projects, as well as public services. Private industry is just bait, that’s all they are, pawns of the state that exist to bait in investment from foreign conglomerates that would never invest in state owned or state operated industry. Private industry in china is held on an incredibly tight leash, much harsher than any country in the globe that allows the private sector to exist. Private industry is only allowed to operate in a limited amount of fields, and is only allowed to operate in SEZs (special economic zones) designated by the government. This has been very successful for china, and if any self described economic liberals learned about how the Chinese economy operated, they would immediately lambast it as evil communism and would not at all come to the conclusion that capitalism or economic liberalism has been beneficial to china.