[A-List] Restructuring the Chinese Economy

[Michael Keaney]

Henry writes:

Notwithstanding the constitutional guaranteee of private property rights,
which to many seems a revisionist slipage, the focus of redirecting GDP
growth target towards people-based and environmentally-friendly develpment
in Chinese policy circles is very encouraging.

-----

I've long wished that Henry would spend more time with us discussing
developments in China. In the past on other lists this usually resulted in
accusations of nationalism being levelled against Henry, who was regarded as
simply engaging in apologetics. For those (myself included) accustomed to
thinking in two dimensions, the "slippage" of China has been a source of
great disappointment. However, blaming the Chinese leadership for everything
is only convenient in the sense that it ignores the tasks incumbent upon the
metropolitan masses in challenging their own state-capital nexus. As Mark
Jones pointed out repeatedly, Stalin cannot properly be understood without
due reference to the fact that the USSR, from the very beginning until its
end, was under siege. And what was true of the USSR was and remains true of
China. The path taken by Stalin and his successors led ultimately to
failure, although with certain very important mitigating successes, as
evidenced by the dramatic collapse in living standards following the end of
the Soviet Union. Thus China, to survive, has had to plot a different path.
How that is negotiated depends, again, very much on events elsewhere in the
world. There is little point arguing against "Stalinists" that "socialism in
one country" is impossible whilst at the same time condemning China (and
Cuba) for failure to live up to the socialist ideal, all the while doing
nothing of substance to advance socialism in one's own backyard.

As Melvin has pointed out, there are inherent dangers in the nurturance and
entrenchment of bourgeois property relations with respect to the trajectory
of the revolution. Yet for China to survive it must somehow pull itself up
to a level capable of withstanding the challenge of US imperialism. The
Stalin/Trotsky solution was tried and ultimately did not succeed. "Socialism
with Chinese characteristics" instead has welcomed the influx of foreign
capital and used that to generate development that is now arguably a prelude
to eventual Chinese economic leadership. The question remains whether or not
that by the time leadership is attained socialist ideals remain embedded
within Chinese policy, or if instead the proliferation of bourgeois property
relations corrupts those ideals and the regime. The struggle within China is
both a reflection of and partly dependent on the struggles outside China.
Henry has offered evidence of the resilience of socialist ideals within the
Chinese regime, and added to this his own suggestions about the best path
forward. It would be good for us all if we could develop this discussion
further on the basis of the above points -- or, if not, that we could at
least avoid the rather predictable, social chauvinist response typical of
all too many metropolitan Marxists with respect to China. China is simply
too important to ignore.

Michael Keaney