[A-List] Re: China not transitional to capitalism: experts

["John Gulick" <john_gulick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gulick writes:

OK, Henry, I'll admit to having a bee in my bonnet when I composed that
screed yesterday, and I'll retract or at least modify about half of what I
wrote. But not all of it.

China People's Daily reported:

"Nearly three decades ago, no single Western economist could have predicted
that China's economy would grow at the fastest rate in the world over the
following 25 years."

Liu wrote: Fact.

Gulick writes: Probably a fact, but so what ? This line is a deliberate
set-up, meant to imply that only a
peculiarly "Chinese" (or "East Asian" at best) epistemology can make sense
of the "miracle."

I have no problem with accepting that critical economic theory may need to
be revised in light of the PRC's latter-day development performance.
However, let it be said that critical economic theory should also be revised
in light of the development performance of any other relevant unit of
analysis, from East Saint Louis to the Amazon Rainforest to the countries of
the African Sahel. Admittedly, though, China is an especially significant
case, owing to its world-historic importance past and present (largely but
by no means exclusively a function of its demographic size).

I also have no problem with accepting that various concepts in so-called
"Western" economic theory (including Marxist economic theory) may be tarred
by Eurocentrism. In neo-classical economic theory there's the bogus notion
of the rational, utility-maximizing individual actor, in some retrograde
versions of Marxist economic theory there's the bogus notion of the "static"
and "vegetative" "Asiatic mode of production," and so on.

I do have a problem with the insinuation (an insinuation I am too readily
imagining ?) that a critical economic theory revised in the light of the
PRC's recent experience does not or would not have _universal_ validity.
Otherwise, what you get is a kind of inverted "Orientalism," i.e. PRC elites
and their
academic handmaidens promulgating a theory of the "uniqueness of the East,"
one that would serve to
mask the class dimensions of whatever the PRC is today (and it may well not
be capitalism), rather than
critical economic theory. We should follow the lead of universalist radicals
like Samir Amin and Ander Gunder Frank, not the self-serving ideologies of
"cultural essentialist" charlatans like Lee Kuan Yew.

China People's Daily reported:

"At that time the preconditions set as necessary in standard Western
economic textbooks - a well-established market, private property rights and
effective rule of law - were not present."

Liu wrote: True.

Gulick writes: Yes, true. But again, should we be bowled over that "standard
Western economic textbooks" can't sufficiently account for China's GDP boom
? For us neo-Marxist types (and I include you among them) "standard Western
economic textbooks" _never_ explain anything properly, anytime, anyplace.
The People's Daily makes it sound as if "Western" (i.e. neo-liberal)
economic theory indeed does sufficiently account for "Western" (i.e. Europe,
the U.S.) development, but is congenitally incapable of sufficiently
accounting for "Eastern" development because it is a "Western" theory. The
fact of the matter is neo-liberal bullshit theory is bullshit theory not
because it is "Western" but because it is (to put it crudely) a set of
legitimating rationales for exploitation, inequality, etc. in capitalist
class society, as well as (to put it equally crudely) a set of legitimating
rationales for uneven development, polarization, etc. in imperialist global
society.

China People's Daily reported:

"Mainstream economics in the West categorizes the Chinese economy as a
'changing socialist economy.' This definition was called into question by
Chinese scholars. Shi Zhengfu, an economic professor with the Shanghai-based
prestigious Fudan University, said what has been produced in China is
probably not a change from one social and economic system to another, nor
"transitional" to capitalism in Westerners' view, but an 'evolution to an
unknown world.'"

Liu wrote: It did qualify "Mainstream economics in the West."

Gulick writes: Yes, you are plainly correct, and in my furious haste I
missed it. I am heartened to see this, not in the least because I, like you,
detest the "Western" bourgeois media's unexamined knee-jerk
tendency to assume that the inevitable destimation of PRC "economic reform"
is "for them to be like us"
(a virtuous "us" of course). Nonetheless, I contend that, just as most
economists in the U.S. studiously
ignore the class dimensions of U.S. capitalism, most economists in today's
PRC studiously ignore the class dimensions of the "unknown" system emergent
in the PRC. They are too busy gloriously celebrating the vigorous eightfold
expansion of the PRC's productive forces these past two-and-a-half decades.
It is not my intention to belittle this impressive feat, because it was and
is neccesary for the safeguarding of the PRC's sovereign interests in
today's potentially hostile world (anchored by the U.S. security state, of
course), but that does not mean it is innocent of class dimensions. The
rising tide of SOE worker and smallholder peasant protests in the past year
(especially in Dongbei) is evidence enough of that.

Skipping through the text a bit ...

China People's Daily reported:

"Prof. Shi said China's economics could play a role in the following three
aspects: the enterprise system of multiple ownership including public
ownership; the pattern of social wealth distribution with the
creation of middle class going before privatization; local governments
acting as 'administrator', not 'night watchman' as they are in Western
countries."

Liu wrote: Accurate observation.

Gulick writes: C'mon Henry, I know you're far too knowledgeable to honestly
claim that any one of these "three aspects" rings true. For an economist
(Chinese or otherwise) to speak of the "multiple ownership" system in such
glowing terms is an idealist abstraction, designed to gloss over the tawdry
reality of cadre corruption that has been a major (if not the only)
distinguishing characteristic of the
transition to said system of "multiple ownership." The rosy remark about the
"pattern of social wealth
distribution" is laughable: the PRC's Gini coefficient surpasses that of
India. A more sincere rendering would be that PRC economic reform has
managed to yield a very big and rapidly growing layer of private,
public-private, and public sector yuppies (including technical-managerial
yuppies), many of whom worry seriously about the misfortunes of workers,
peasants, and the "floating population," but only to the extent that it
portends social instability and possibly political disintegration. And since
when were local
governments in "Western countries" nothing more than "night watchmen" ? You
live in Manhattan, Henry, and I think you're familiar with the New York-New
Jersey Port Authority. I swear, Chomsky (and I'm not a salivating devotee of
Chomsky) may be onto something: intellectuals seem habitually predisposed to
being servants of power.

I have to put this discussion to bed for now, but there's one more point I'd
like to address in conclusion.

Liu wrote: I suspect your trouble is that you do not like to tone of the
translation.

Gulick writes: I certainly agree that a good deal gets lost in translation.
I base my analysis on educated guesses, which cannot match either your
cultural sensitivity nor your bountiful knowledge of Chinese economic
history, past and present. Nonetheless I feel quite comfortable with my
contention that many if not all of the Chinese economists featured in this
article are either consciously or unconsiously misrepresenting the class
dimensions of China's post-Mao development performance.

Respectfully,

John Gulick

_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy
patented spam control and more.  Get two months FREE!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa