Many
on the left think that China is not a socialist state anymore or “at
the very least it is no longer pursuing socialist goals.” Well, tell
that to the Chinese. Go to the Chinese web and look at the plethora of
neo-Maoist sites that propagandize for socialist values. These are
allowed and encouraged by forces within the CCP, otherwise they wouldn't
exist. Tell that to the Cuba Communist Party which views China as a
fraternal country which they are beginning to emulate. China is busy building
up its productive capacity and has unleashed market forces to do so.
Deng Xiaoping clearly stated what the Chinese strategy to build the
foundations for socialism was 30 years ago and China has not deviated
from that path. The project to build a modern, industrialized country
that will serve as a springboard for the comprehensive development of
socialism is not a one year, one decade thing, it may actually take a
century. By 2050 one hundred years after the establishment of the PRC I
think a lot of naive leftists will be eating a lot of crow.
Read
the statements issued at the 18th Party Congress and contained within
the 12th Five-Year Plan. The goal of building socialism is central. But
the Chinese are very cognizant of the fact that in order to engage in
the long-term program of building socialism a strong foundation has to
be laid. And as good Leninists they realize that in the age of
imperialism and monopoly capitalism this can only be done by using
capitalist techniques domestically and integrating into the capitalist
economy globally by accepting and encouraging foreign investment and
manufacturing in China. But these are temporary expedients (and
temporary means decades not years) constrained by the Chinese socialist
system led by the CCP which frames and implements five-year plans and
other policies that outline the contours of industrial and social
development. The commanding heights of the economy are state controlled
with State Owned Enterprises still holding sway while much of the
private sector is heavily influenced by state initiated projects and a
web of economic ties. You may scoff at all this as “state capitalism” or
some-such, but Lenin understood that socialism in its initial stage of
development in the Soviet Union amounted to state capitalism combined
with Soviet power.
As
Lenin stated, “State capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects
of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism
that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our
state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in
countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is
represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has
succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not
proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have
not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to
help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is
inconceivable.” Sounds a lot like the China of today to me, and China
was coming from a far lower state of economic development than
Russia.
But
you say, the CCP is not a proletarian Party it is a bureaucratic Party
controlled by a new bourgeoisie. Hogwash. It is an alliance of the
proletariat, the new peasantry, the national bourgeoisie, and the new intelligentsia and new middle class. The key is that Marxist-Leninist
ideology is in command directing the development of the economy and
society as a whole. There is a lot going on behind the scenes but, if
you can read and understand Chinese it is all readily available and
there are many sources that discuss all these issue from the left, right
and center. There are leftist neo-Maoists, centrist communists, and
rightist neo-liberals all with very different perspectives and
prescriptions for China's development.
There
is intense class struggle in the CCP. And intense class struggle in
Chinese society as a whole. This is a very good thing and shows the
dynamism and vibrancy of China. There are classes and class struggles in
China. That is how it should and must be for history to move forward.
There has been no-counter revolution. The Revolution is unfolding on a
daily basis. For those who can not see or understand this I say you are a
phoney Marxist, a book worshiping Marxist who doesn't know the first
thing about understanding the organic and dynamic process of social and
economic formation
A
little historical review. After the Revolution Mao wanted to achieve a
modus vivendi with the US but was rebuked. He then realized he had to
lean to one side and embraced an alliance with the USSR which he and
other Chinese communists held with deep suspicion. Put there was no
choice and China was obliged to follow the Soviet model or be totally
isolated. China in 1949 was not a capitalist country. It was a
semi-feudal, semi-colonial country that had just gone through decades of
civil strife and Japanese aggression and occupation and a century of
Western colonialism. China's percentage of world GDP had fallen from
about 30% in 1790 to under 5% in 1949. You could never build socialism
in one country based on the low level of production in China in 1949.
What resource did China have? People. Mao was able to mobilize the
people to an unprecedented degree to rehabilitate China and establish a
basis for further growth and development. This had precedents in
Chinese history and had been done coercively at the beginning of every
major dynasty. Mao did it by rallying the nation. He initiated what can
be called “war communism” if you like because it required a massive,
co-ordinated effort conducted on a military scale with military tactics,
hence the Great Leap Forward and the People's Communes. It was a
necessary expedient given the material conditions China faced as a
nation state. But it could only be temporary, the material conditions in
the countryside would not allow it to continue. The majority of the CCP
leadership realized that there had to be a transition to a phase of
state capitalism that would unleash China's latent forces of production
in order to build and develop the means of production. This could only
be done as Lenin understood by foreign investment. As Lenin clearly
stated, “without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the
latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.” China under Deng took
this admonition to heart.
But
Mao resisted. He was an idealist at heart and wanted to realize
socialism and communism in his lifetime, hence the mistaken attempt to
adhere to the socialist road taken during the GPCR. The policies pursued
while “socialist” were way too premature and unsustainable. Western
imperialism would have eventually eaten China alive as it did the USSR
and Eastern Europe a decade later. Capitalism was not restored in China.
That is the major fallacy and fatal flaw in your whole analysis.
Socialism was hanging on by a thread. Per capita income in 1980 was $300
per year. The country was economically stagnant. War communism had done
wonders in stabilizing China and creating the material basis for
China's rise, but it could not sustain and develop the economy in the
face of imperialist aggression and attempts at destabilization and
regime change. If the CCP could not deliver significant economic growth,
opening up and modernization the PRC would surely have imploded during
the great regression of the late 1980s and early 1990s. To not
understand that is to be totally ignorant of the motive forces of
history, is totally anti-Marxist and based on wishful thinking.
You say:
1)
The Chinese Revolution from the very start was an anti-feudal, national
liberation AND a socialist revolution at the same time. While many who
did join the Communists were dedicated to constructing a socialist
society, many others who joined the ranks of the revolution were
motivated not by socialism per se, but were PRIMARILY motivated by
modernizing China so that it could no longer be victimized by foreign
imperialist powers. While it was convenient at the time to unite all who
could be united, the mixed ideological character of many party cadre,
going up to the highest ranks of the party, caused severe problems down
the road. When the struggle was of a primarily anti-feudal and
anti-imperialist character, such cadre were revolutionaries, however
when it came time to push on to socialism and communism, such factions
became counter-revolutionary.
The
above points are well-taken but the conclusion is totally wrong. You
don't build socialism in one generation. It is a long protracted period
of socio-economic development in which classes and class struggles
continue to exist. There is the capitalist road and the socialist road
and one or the other will be emphasized as conditions warrant during the course of socio-economic
development. It is a class conscious Communist Party that must direct
and control this process for it to succeed. The last point you
completely overlook and misunderstand.
2)
After the Sino-Soviet split, China had only two long term options for
survival in a hostile capitalist world and under a crippling blockade by
the US- it either could spread Communist revolutions across the Third
World to win itself an independent network of allies, or reach some sort
of rapprochement with US imperialism. When the huge pro-China
Indonesian Communist Party was literally massacred out of existence by
the CIA-backed Suharto dictatorship in 1965-66, this had the same effect
on China that the defeat of the Spartacist uprising in Germany 1919 had
on the Soviet Union- the failure of the revolution to spread beyond its
borders created a sense of defeatism with regards to the prospect of
world revolution and aided the rise of a conservative bureaucracy at
home.
We
still live during the era of imperialism and US Imperialism is a very
powerful enemy of the world's people. The prospect for world revolution
in the 1970s and 80s was a chimera. Imperialism was slightly thwarted
but came roaring back, particularly after the collapse of the USSR and
the socialist bloc. China could not have gone it alone and instead
followed the Leninist principle of integrating into the global market in
order to develop the economic foundations for socialist construction.
That is exactly what China did. China is pursuing a Leninist strategy
to use capitalism and the capitalists to build socialism and defeat
imperialism. Lenin is said to have said that, "The Capitalists will sell
us the rope with which we will hang them." The Chinese have gone one step further, the Chinese have sold the capitalists the rope with which they
will hang themselves.
3)
Mao made a serious error in not introducing struggle against the
“capitalist-roaders” within the People’s Liberation Army due to concerns
that China could not afford strife within the military when war with
the Soviet Union was a looming possibility. Because of this the PLA
played a key role in repressing the more revolutionary militias and Red
Guard formations toward the end of the Cultural Revolution, first in
1969 and then in 1976(the first time under Mao’s orders). This made it
easy for the revisionists(ie Deng Xiaoping and his allies) to clear the
obstacles to seizing unchallenged control of the state.
If
China had defeated the “capitalist roaders” it would have meant the
eventual demise of the PRC. The “capitalist” and “socialist” roads must
be in contention with one another for society to move forward. Otherwise
you get stagnation., decay and eventual full blown capitalist
restoration as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
4)
The restoration of capitalism in China came in stages- the first began
with the arrest and trial of the Gang of Four after the death of Mao,
the dismantling of the People’s Communes in the countryside, and the
implementation of ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ with the
establishment of Special Economic Zones in certain coastal areas.
However, this was still relatively limited in nature, akin to the New
Economic Policy in the Soviet Union 1921-28. The second stage came in
1989, when mass workers protests against rampant corruption, increasing
unemployment, economic inequality, and cuts to the social safety net
were brutally crushed by the People’s Liberation Army(again a
consequence of #3). By the early 1990′s one could say capitalism had
more or less been restored to China. Working class resistance to
neo-liberalism continues-there are tens of thousands of strikes in China
every year.
Capitalism
was not restored in China. What you are describing is the shift from
“war communism” to “state capitalism” neither of which is “socialism.”
Both are differing developmental strategies pursued at different times
under different circumstances to build the foundations for the
development of socialism. They were and are both appropriate for their
times.
5)
The reason the PRC has not been dismembered and the living standards of
the Chinese working class have not taken an all out plunge like they
have in the former USSR is because the ruling Communist Party has
restricted the worst aspects of capitalism and kept a substantive
regulated state sector of the economy in place, as well as maintaining
some semblance of a social safety net in the cities(but not vast areas
of the countryside). It does so not out of any benevolence but because
of the realization that leaving the market entirely to its own devices
will result in the loss of its own power. However, the rise of a large
capitalist class with its own independent interests and now in key
positions of influence within the Communist Party is a threat to even
these restraints. IMO, in the next 10-15 years China will either go
leftward back to socialism via a workers revolution with support of low
level Communist Party cadre, or the Communist Party will be ousted by
the capitalist class wanting to remove any remaining restraints on its
interests. Thoughts?
The
reason “why” China has developed as it has is precisely because it is a
country in the primary stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics
utilizing the market as a lever for economic development (i.e. market
socialism). China's social safety net is not being dismantled but
extended, environmental protections and food and drug safety standards
are not being reduced but vastly expanded, alternative energies and
sustainable growth are being promoted not curtailed, workers rights are
being expanded not restricted, and on and on. China is developing in an
organic and dynamic fashion and class struggle is the motor driving it
forward.
The
neo-liberals like Liu Xiaobo who hate socialism and hate the CCP want
to dismantle the PRC, promote bourgeois democracy and the multi-party
parliamentary system, they want to see the extension of bourgeois rights
and the total and complete restoration of capitalism, the dismantling
of the state owned sector, total privatization and total surrender of
sovereignty to US Imperialism In a slip of his tongue Liu Xiaobo even
said China needs 300 more years of colonialism to become a modern
nation. Liu Xiaobo is what the restoration of capitalism would look like in China. Xi Jinping is what socialism looks like in China today.
The Truth About China
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Tibet Redux
China's "restive" border regions are back in the news with reports of ethnic conflict in China's northwestern region of Xinjiang and the continued terrorist campaign of self-immolation by Tibetan monks.
This post will focus on Tibet. Both the Dalai Lama and high ranking Chinese officials are intimating that change is in the air regarding policy towards dissident Tibetans. But before discussing these new developments let's review the situation in Tibet as of 2010 when I last posted on the subject. My blog entry then was a review of the geo-political history of Tibet vis-a-vis China. At around the same time a Congressional Report on the visit of a U.S. Senate delegation led by then Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lugar (R-IN) was released. Now buried in the Congressional archives this report is startling for its revelations of the immense progress that has occurred in Tibet over the last decade. This report has the imprimatur of the ever critical US government so it is no whitewash. Let's read some of its observations.
This post will focus on Tibet. Both the Dalai Lama and high ranking Chinese officials are intimating that change is in the air regarding policy towards dissident Tibetans. But before discussing these new developments let's review the situation in Tibet as of 2010 when I last posted on the subject. My blog entry then was a review of the geo-political history of Tibet vis-a-vis China. At around the same time a Congressional Report on the visit of a U.S. Senate delegation led by then Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lugar (R-IN) was released. Now buried in the Congressional archives this report is startling for its revelations of the immense progress that has occurred in Tibet over the last decade. This report has the imprimatur of the ever critical US government so it is no whitewash. Let's read some of its observations.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Chinese Economy: Of, By and For the People
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, two long-time Occupy Washington D.C. activists, posted an essay today at Counterpunch entitled, “Time for an Economy Of, By and For the People.” Upon reading it I was immediately struck by a certain sense of familiarity. Then I realized, the economic policies they advocate are exactly what those awful Chinese Communists are pursuing. It never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that the US Left refuses to take China seriously as a source of knowledge and information about how to build socialism in a poor underdeveloped, rural society, nonetheless learn any lessons about how socialism actually works in a developing, transitional economy. Instead the American Left seems to be enthralled by the Corporate media in depicting China as a rapacious, hyper-capitalist, human rights abuser and super global polluter. Let me disabuse the reader of this miss perception as it applies to China's current economic policy, particularly as it relates to disparities in income distribution, the wage structure and other such jobs related issues. Since this topic actually would require a book, I will focus on the article written by Zeese and Flowers as a template for discussion.
As Zeese and Flowers state, “the White House and Congress have not put in place policies to create a real recovery. Their focus on reducing the deficit, which has proven to not be based on sound research or an understanding of economic history, starved the country of what it needed most – job creation and rising wages. Instead the people got policies that caused stagnant wages and budget cuts that the IMF this week called “senseless and ill-designed.”
How does this compare to China's response to the global economic crisis? They have done the exact opposite. China has been raising both average and minimum wages by between 10% and 20% over the last few years and they intend to continue to do so until the minimum wage is at least 40% of the average wage by 2015 (Reuters: China sets target of average 13 percent annual minimum wage rise). As Zeese and Flowers prescribe, “Indeed, a global minimum wage that is at least half the median income of a country and above its poverty level, would end poverty and provide a foundation for the global economy.” So it seems that China is well on its way to meeting that goal, one which will continue to spur economic growth by raising the living standards of millions of the lowest paid workers in China.
Zeese and Flowers state further that, “In addition to raising wages, as there is certainly no wage inflation, there is a desperate need for job creation programs by the government.” In China, however, wages are rising much faster than inflation. Inflation in China in May 2013 was reported to be 2.1% per annum whereas wages are increasing at a double digit annual rate. So in China there is obviously considerable wage inflation which increases consumer purchasing power and is a long-time spur to economic growth. Moreover China has been building infrastructure and investing in alternative energy at breakneck speed (e.g. a fledgling Cap and Trade system is being rolled out), creating jobs as a result, both prescriptions for economic growth advocated by Zeese and Flowers.
In addition to the above China's current 5 Year Plan endorsed by both the recent Communist Party and People's Congresses envisions increased spending on social programs including enhancements to the Chinese equivalents of Social Security, Medicare, subsidized low-income housing and increases in other social safety net expenditures. This is to be funded by requiring State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to contribute 5% more to the State (Reuters: China OKs sweeping tax reforms to tackle inequality). This is meant to free up consumer spending by reducing the high savings rate which Chinese rely on as insurance for unfunded health care and retirement expenses.
This brief review is to attest to the fact that China is actually putting into effect everything that's being advocated by Zeese and Flowers as part and parcel of an economy that is of, by and for the people.
As Zeese and Flowers state, “the White House and Congress have not put in place policies to create a real recovery. Their focus on reducing the deficit, which has proven to not be based on sound research or an understanding of economic history, starved the country of what it needed most – job creation and rising wages. Instead the people got policies that caused stagnant wages and budget cuts that the IMF this week called “senseless and ill-designed.”
How does this compare to China's response to the global economic crisis? They have done the exact opposite. China has been raising both average and minimum wages by between 10% and 20% over the last few years and they intend to continue to do so until the minimum wage is at least 40% of the average wage by 2015 (Reuters: China sets target of average 13 percent annual minimum wage rise). As Zeese and Flowers prescribe, “Indeed, a global minimum wage that is at least half the median income of a country and above its poverty level, would end poverty and provide a foundation for the global economy.” So it seems that China is well on its way to meeting that goal, one which will continue to spur economic growth by raising the living standards of millions of the lowest paid workers in China.
Zeese and Flowers state further that, “In addition to raising wages, as there is certainly no wage inflation, there is a desperate need for job creation programs by the government.” In China, however, wages are rising much faster than inflation. Inflation in China in May 2013 was reported to be 2.1% per annum whereas wages are increasing at a double digit annual rate. So in China there is obviously considerable wage inflation which increases consumer purchasing power and is a long-time spur to economic growth. Moreover China has been building infrastructure and investing in alternative energy at breakneck speed (e.g. a fledgling Cap and Trade system is being rolled out), creating jobs as a result, both prescriptions for economic growth advocated by Zeese and Flowers.
In addition to the above China's current 5 Year Plan endorsed by both the recent Communist Party and People's Congresses envisions increased spending on social programs including enhancements to the Chinese equivalents of Social Security, Medicare, subsidized low-income housing and increases in other social safety net expenditures. This is to be funded by requiring State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to contribute 5% more to the State (Reuters: China OKs sweeping tax reforms to tackle inequality). This is meant to free up consumer spending by reducing the high savings rate which Chinese rely on as insurance for unfunded health care and retirement expenses.
This brief review is to attest to the fact that China is actually putting into effect everything that's being advocated by Zeese and Flowers as part and parcel of an economy that is of, by and for the people.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
The Chen Guangcheng Imbroglio
Chen Guangcheng, the erstwhile Chinese dissident is back in the news. Now he's accusing NYU of reneging on the fellowship he received after he defected to the US. According to Chen, NYU caved to Chinese pressure and rescinded his all expenses paid sojourn at the University. Of course NYU denies the allegation stating that the appointment was for one year only and that there had never been any expectation of its renewal.
Chen is what we would consider a gadfly
here in the US. Now, I have nothing against gadflies, some of my
heroes are or have been gadflies. But gadflies, by their very nature
are annoying. They are obsessive compulsives and will not give up no
matter what the consequences of their actions. A local gadfly in
Santa Cruz who I greatly admire, Robert Norse, is an advocate for the
vagrant population of Santa Cruz, and has been harassed, persecuted and
prosecuted by the local power structure for decades. Most recently he
was falsely charged, along with 10 “co-conspirators,” with felony
conspiracy to trespass and vandalize an abandoned bank building that
was occupied by protesters during the height of the Occupy movement
in Santa Cruz a year and a half ago. The charges against Norse and
seven others were dropped for lack of evidence, a clear indication
that he and the others were targeted for political retaliation as
they were all visible leaders and members of Occupy Santa Cruz.
The point being that persistently
visible and vociferous critics of government social policy and
advocates for the down-trodden and abused meet with repression both
here and abroad, in the US as in China. If I was Chinese I probably
would be sympathetic towards Chen just as I am a supporter of Robert
Norse. But many people, actually the overwhelming majority of Santa
Cruzans, even some on the left, consider Norse to be a trouble-maker,
seeking self-aggrandizement. I know that many Chinese think of Chen
in the same way.
So why am I not on the band-wagon
supporting Chen as a Human Rights champion and lambasting China for
how they treated him? The reason is that the whole imbroglio is being
used to stigmatize China as a serial human rights abuser and to stir up
anti-China hysteria. While it would be nice to live in a perfect
world where everybody acts in an angelic fashion, that is not the way
things actually work. Gadflies such as Chen and Norse are
unfortunately persecuted here, there and everywhere. And some of it
of course is of their own doing, they choose to be gadflies and place
themselves in harm's way by challenging the powers that be. But we do
not make these instances of persecution of gadflies into major breaches of
human rights domestically. The ACLU, Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch and human rights crusaders such as Richard Gere and
Desmond Tutu have not taken up the cause of Robert Norse or other
persecuted gadflies here in the US. Why not? Why haven't they
inflated these local instances of persecution into major human rights issues here in the US? The only
conclusion to be reached is that the whole human rights issue is a
cynical attempt to stigmatize China. To make China out to be a
sinister menace that must to chastised and opposed for its barbaric
political repression. In actual fact, compared to many of our once
and future allies throughout the world, China does not have death
squads to eliminate its opposition, does not engage in political
assassination of its critics and does not send aerial drones across
international borders to remotely bomb its adversaries. So, no matter
how one may view Chen on a personal level, his plight has been
hypocritically and cynically used to further an anti-China agenda.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
State Department to Sanction China and Russia for Human Trafficking
Here we go again. The US State Dept. is ramping up the anti-China and anti-Russia propaganda mills. Now they're charging that both China and Russia are among the worst offending countries on human trafficking, a designation that will lead to sanctions against both countries. Give me a break. This is a purely political canard. Who defines what constitutes human trafficking and who determines what various countries, including the USA, are doing to combat it? If anything the US should rank at the top of the list what with our millions of undocumented immigrants, and the sex trafficking evidenced by all the massage parlors employing foreign sex slaves, and pimps with young, under-age run away girls, plying their trade in our inner cities and suburbs. Just watch cable TV to see nearly daily exposes of our illicit sex trade. What about the 2 million plus incarcerated in our jails, warehoused by the prison-industrial complex, getting paid pennies per hour for their labor? What about all the indentured nannies and migrant workers in the good ole USA, getting paid a pittance and often living in conditions not much better than slavery? Are we going to impose sanctions on ourselves?
The Daily Beast reports that “Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the final determination, wrote in the introduction to the report. "Human trafficking undermines the rule of law and creates instability. It tears apart families and communities. It damages the environment and corrupts the global supply chains and labor markets that keep the world’s economies thriving ... We also have a moral obligation to meet this challenge head-on." Yes we do Mr. Kerry and we should meet the challenge head-on right here at home before we start accusing others for transgressions we engage in. Kerry went on to state, “Ending modern slavery must remain a foreign-policy priority. Fighting this crime wherever it exists is in our national interest," Yes, Mr. Kerry ending modern slaving must be a priority, a domestic priority. What about our trafficking in “illegal immigrants?” We make a big stink about our opposition to illegal immigration, but everyone knows that our government and the business interests that back it has turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades. Our government has in fact been aiding and abetting illegal immigration, allowing the trafficking of millions of impoverished immigrants across our borders, as it serves the interests of American business for a low-wage subservient work force that is not subject to labor protections and can be used to depress wages across the board. This has frequently led to the death of immigrants on the scorching hot no man's land along our southern border with Mexico. So if we are talking about human trafficking let's get serious and start by giving immigrants legal status so they're not subject to labor exploitation and summary deportation. Let's raise the minimum wage so that millions of low-wage workers are not forced to live in subjugation to their corporate bosses. How about ending the war on drugs, which disenfranchises and sends millions of young men of color to jail for their attempts to self-treat their PTSD brought on by the institutional racism they encounter when growing up? How about giving amnesty and jobs to the millions who have been incarcerated as a result and now are denied employment opportunities or the right to vote? China and Russia certainly have problems of human trafficking within their borders and I'm sure they are making attempts to address the issue. To posit China's one-child birth policy and migrant labor issues as contributing to human trafficking within its borders is disingenuous at best. The report reeks of Cold War politics and the continued effort to demonize both China and Russia as their global roles become more decisive in the US contention for hegemony in the Pacific Basin and the Middle East.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Why India Trails China
A New York Times Op-Ed by Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen published on June 19, 2013 attempts to explain "Why India Trails China." Unfortunately the author totally misses the point as my annotated reading of the essay illustrates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — MODERN India
is, in many ways, a success. Its claim to be the world’s largest
democracy is not hollow. Its media is vibrant and free; Indians buy
more newspapers every day than any other nation. (Read
this article, "Police State India", by Andre Vltchek for a
deconstruction of Indian democracy and its “free media.” There is
very little else to be said.)
Since independence in 1947, life
expectancy at birth has more than doubled, to 66 years from 32
(China: 73.6 from 43.9), and per-capita income (adjusted for
inflation) has grown fivefold (300 fold in China since 1962).
In recent decades, reforms pushed up the country’s once sluggish
growth rate to around 8 percent per year, before it fell back a
couple of percentage points over the last two years. For years,
India’s economic growth rate ranked second among the world’s
large economies, after China,
which it has consistently trailed by at least one percentage point. (If India's growth rate has for years been nearly equal to China's it is even more of an indictment of their socio-economic and political systems that the wealth so created has done so little to alleviate the plight of so vast a number of India's poor.)
The hope that India might overtake
China one day in economic growth now seems a distant one. But that
comparison is not what should worry Indians most. The far greater gap
between India and China is in the provision of essential public
services — a failing that depresses living standards and is a
persistent drag on growth. (And why is that the case? Perhaps it has to do with the divergent developmental paths India and China have taken? China is concerned with improving its peoples livelihood and cultural level. Although the coastal cities and provinces have developed more quickly the whole country has been pulled up. India by contrast has seen little development accruing to the bottom 2/3 of society.)
Inequality is high in both countries,
but China has done far more than India to raise life expectancy,
expand general education and secure health care for its people. India
has elite schools of varying degrees of excellence for the
privileged, but among all Indians 7 or older, nearly one in every
five males and one in every three females are illiterate. And most
schools are of low quality; less than half the children can divide 20
by 5, even after four years of schooling. (Consult the UN
Human Development Index which documents the immense gap between
India and China in terms of human development indicators. The failure
of “Indian Democracy” and the success of China's “market
socialism with Chinese characteristics” is there for all to see.)
India may be the world’s largest
producer of generic medicine, but its health care system is an
unregulated mess. The poor have to rely on low-quality — and
sometimes exploitative — private medical care, because there isn’t
enough decent public care. While China devotes 2.7 percent of its
gross domestic product to government spending on health care, India
allots 1.2 percent. (Read
this article comparing the vital labour and social statistics of
India and China, to see how far behind India is in relation to
China in all social indicators.)
India’s underperformance can be
traced to a failure to learn from the examples of so-called Asian
economic development, in which rapid expansion of human capability is
both a goal in itself and an integral element in achieving rapid
growth. Japan pioneered that approach, starting after the Meiji
Restoration in 1868, when it resolved to achieve a fully literate
society within a few decades. As Kido Takayoshi, a leader of that
reform, explained: “Our people are no different from the Americans
or Europeans of today; it is all a matter of education or lack of
education.” Through investments in education and health care, Japan
simultaneously enhanced living standards and labor productivity —
the government collaborating with the market. (Could the fact that Japan practised a form of state capitalism be part of the reason? China has openly proclaimed that it is using market mechanisms (i.e. state capitalism) to accelerate its economic rise. The question is who is utilizing these techniques and for what purpose? In Japan it was the militarists of the imperial court who wanted to expand Japan's "co-prosperity sphere" through aggression and conquest, in China "state capitalism" is employed by the Communist Party in order to allow China to peacefully rise and become a prosperous, modern country.)
Despite the catastrophe of Japan’s
war years, the lessons of its development experience remained and
were followed, in the postwar period, by South Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore and other economies in East Asia. China, which during the
Mao era made advances in land reform and basic education and health
care, embarked on market reforms in the early 1980s; its huge success
changed the shape of the world economy. India has paid inadequate
attention to these lessons. (And why is this the
case? Could the differences in the sociopolitical systems of India
and China have something to do with it? Perhaps the Chinese Revolution and
Socialist Construction explains the difference. The land reform,
investments in basic infrastructure and industrialization, advances
in education and health care were primary objectives of Mao's
developmental program. Apparently not so in India. The Chinese
economic reforms of the last 3 decades implemented and guided by the
central government have unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of the
Chinese nation and spurred its growth. How come India with its
British tutelage hasn't succeeded where China has? As regards the other "hothouse" economies of East Asia, even South Korea has a population considerably smaller than a small sized Chinese province such as Jiangsu or Anhui)
Is there a conundrum here that
democratic India has done worse than China in educating its citizens
and improving their health? Perhaps, but the puzzle need not be a
brainteaser. Democratic participation, free expression and rule of
law are largely realities in India, and still largely aspirations in
China. (This is absurd. What is the use of democratic
participation, free expression and rule of law if they do not improve
people's livelihood? Does "democratic participation, free expression and rule of
law" mean anything to the vast rural and
urban masses living in abject poverty in India? And having lived and
travelled in China the idea that Chinese citizens do not participate
in their own governance, cannot express themselves and have no rule
of law is ludicrous.) India has not had a famine since
independence, while China had the largest famine in recorded history,
from 1958 to 1961, when Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward killed
some 30 million people.(Given the differences in life expectancy
between India and China it could be said that India has had a
perpetual famine since independence. The famine in China, over 50
years ago, is ancient history and the 30 million figure is based on
the number of premature deaths above and beyond what would be expected as normal. How many excess deaths have there been in India relative to
China over the last 60 years? The Indian premature death toll due to
perpetual famine is probably in the hundreds of millions. Also should be mentioned is the wave of rural suicides amongst Indian farmers due to insurmountable indebtedness)
Nevertheless, using democratic means to remedy endemic problems —
chronic undernourishment, a disorganized medical system or
dysfunctional school systems — demands sustained deliberation,
political engagement, media coverage, popular pressure. In short,
more democratic process, not less. (As the India economy has grown
social indicators have stagnated and rest near the bottom of the
scale in all recent surveys. Why should more of India's supposed "superior" democracy
be expected to perform any better than it has?)+
In China, decision making takes place
at the top. (This is a very simplistic statement. There are many level of governance in China and quite frequently innovations and experiments are carried out at local and provincial levels.) The country’s leaders are skeptical, if not hostile,
with regard to the value of multiparty democracy, but they have been
strongly committed to eliminating hunger, illiteracy and medical
neglect, and that is enormously to their credit. (Multiparty
democracy as a thing in and of itself has no value if it does not
produce results that better the people's livelihood and cultural
level. There are many other forms of democratic governance that China is utilizing, including consultative and deliberative democracy.)
There are inevitable fragilities in a
nondemocratic system because mistakes are hard to correct. (China
has been self-correcting its economic developmental strategy since
the founding of the PRC. Many mistakes have been made, been
acknowledged, analyzed and corrected. This process is still ongoing.
The author even states it is India that persists in its mistakes
not China.) Dissent is dangerous. (Dissent is more tolerated in
China than in most other developing countries as long as the system of governance
(Communist Party rule) and state authority is not challenged.) There is little recourse for victims of injustice. (The
World
Justice Project shows that India and China rank close to one
another in most indicators except that India is characterized by more
limited government and China by greater order and stability which are
flip sides of the same coin. Corruption (the main source of injustice in developing countries) as documented by
the Global
Corruption Barometer is significantly more severe in India than
China) Edicts like the one-child policy can
be very harsh. (The vast majority of Chinese recognize the necessity of that policy and there are myriad exceptions to the rule.) Still, China’s present leaders have used the basic
approach of accelerating development by expanding human capability
with great decisiveness and skill.
The case for combating debilitating
inequality in India is not only a matter of social justice. Unlike
India, China did not miss the huge lesson of Asian economic
development, about the economic returns that come from bettering
human lives, especially at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid.
(The question still is, why did India miss the boat?) India’s growth and its earnings from exports have tended to depend
narrowly on a few sectors, like information technology,
pharmaceuticals and specialized auto parts, many of which rely on the
role of highly trained personnel from the well-educated classes. (again, why?) For
India to match China in its range of manufacturing capacity — its
ability to produce gadgets of almost every kind, with increasing use
of technology and better quality control — it needs a
better-educated and healthier labour force at all levels of society.
What it needs most is more knowledge and public discussion about the
nature and the huge extent of inequality and its damaging
consequences, including for economic growth. (The main lesson to be
learned is that the Communist Party has performed an economic and
developmental miracle in transforming China in a few decades from the
Sick Man of Asia into an economic powerhouse, while India building on
the legacy of British bourgeois parliamentary democracy has fallen far behind.)
Amartya
Sen, a Nobel laureate, is a professor of economics and philosophy
at Harvard. He is the author,
with Jean Drèze, of “An Uncertain Glory: India and its
Contradictions.”
Sunday, June 2, 2013
What Germany's Iron Chancellor Can Show Red China
Click here to read this informative article by Pankaj Mishra at Bloomberg. The only problem with it is that it lacks historic depth. What Mishra doesn't mention is that the Chinese Revolution is deeply rooted in the progressivism of the Hundred Day's Reform Movement, a failed 104-day national cultural, political and educational reform movement from 11 June to 21 September 1898 in the late Qing Dynasty. It was undertaken by the young Guangxu Emperor and his reform-minded supporters. The movement proved to be short-lived, ending in a coup d'etat by powerful conservative opponents led by Empress Dowager Cixi. The reforms advocated during the movement read like they were written for presentation to the 15th Party Congress. They included:
- Reforming the examination system for civil service.
- Opposing corruption and nepotism through the elimination of sinecures (positions that provide little or no work but give a salary).
- Creation of a modern education system (studying math and science instead of focusing mainly on Confucian texts, etc.).
- Changing the government from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy (a republic with an appointed legislature).
- Applying the principles of the market to strengthen the economy.
- Modernizing and strengthening the military.
- Rapidly industrializing all of China through manufacturing, commerce, and state sponsored capitalism.
The 15th Party Congress and 16th National People's Congress have both put forth a program of social and economic reforms modelled on progressive legislation in the West. It could be called a Chinese New Deal, including an enhanced Social Security retirement program, the expansion and extension of a Medicare system into rural China, increases in the minimum wage, subsidized low-income housing, enhanced environmental protections and food and drug safety regulatory bodies modelled after the US EPA and FDA. This is all part of the push to increase urbanization and promote domestic consumption as the economic engine driving China's continued growth and development.
None of this is new to Chinese thinkers and policy makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)