During the late 70’s a radical shift in narrative occurred within the Chinese Communist Party. Deng Xiaoping, called the “capitalist roadster” by many cadres, had proposed a fundamental alteration to the overall outlook on approaching economy activity, proposing that the intersection between planning and a market was but a thin dividing line that could be overcome and utilized towards the development of socialism. For much of the international communist movement this had been seen as an ultimate betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, compared to the likes of the reforms in the USSR carried about by the Kruschev administration. Yet since 1991 the People’s Republic of China has quickly become the largest economy in the world, undertaking tremendous growth and increasing of people’s living standards while still maintaining a form of governance akin to that established after the founding of the new republic, namely a proletarian dictatorship. It survived one of the largest catastrophes in history, demonstrating a triumphant path for the future of all socialist movements in the world.
But at what cost? To answer the questions relating to the authenticity of the socialist program, we must first understand how China’s economy works.
“The relationship of the invigoration of the economy to state plans is just like that of a bird and its cage. We can not hold the bird in hand; if we do so, it will die. We must allow it to fly, but only in a cage. Without the cage, it will fly away.” -Chen Yun, “ATTAINMENT OF GOALS SET BY 12TH CPC NATIONAL CONGRESS”
The socialist market economy of China is comprised of many elements, with a melding between private and public enterprises, as well as joint partnerships. For some at a first glance it may appear as a sort of social democracy masquerading as socialism, but this is not the case. Deng Xiaoping noted during his tour in 1992 to the southern provinces of China as part of the reform and opening up that there was a distinction:
“Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity” (‘Market fundamentalism’ is unpractical — People’s Daily Online)
Deng Xiaoping aimed to transform capitalism to maintain a socialist character as long as the main phase of development had not been met. In a world economy now ruled by neoliberalism, the ties of capitalism had become nearly impossible to break. The reform and opening up tackled this issue by addressing the question of ownership within a framework of such mechanisms, by emphasizing proletarian control of industry and other sectors of the economy. This was not only handled from the aspect of how businesses were run and operated, but rather a top down approach under which the party and state ensured that production under private and public spheres was incentivized or otherwise required to produce in collective fashion, or in other cases that commodities were created for the public good rather than the maximizing of profits. The circulation of capital no longer went to the hands of one class, but was used towards state projects for infrastructure and benefits for the working class. Much of the capital has also been used for poverty alleviation and housing programs which have been dismissed by western media as “ghost towns” during their construction.
Deng Xiaoping noted that there was a necessary shift within the party line from class struggle to emphasizing the development of productive forces in the here and now:
“For many years we suffered badly from one major error: after the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production had been basically accomplished, we still took class struggle as the key link and neglected to develop the productive forces. The “cultural revolution’’ carried this tendency to the extreme. Since the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, the Party has shifted the focus of all its work to the drive for socialist modernization and, while adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles*, has concentrated on developing the productive forces. That was the most important thing we did to set things right. The good situation we have today would not have come about if we had not thoroughly corrected the “Left’’ mistakes and resolutely shifted the focus of our work. At the same time, if we had not conscientiously adhered to the four principles, we would not have been able to maintain political stability and unity, and we would even have gone from correcting “Left’’ mistakes to “correcting’’ socialism and Marxism-Leninism. And then the good situation we have today would not have come about either.” (Deng Xiaoping Collected Works, P. 95) (* = The Four Cardinal Principles were created for to ensure the continuation of a socialist line within the party: 1.) The principle of upholding the socialist path 2.) The principle of upholding the people’s democratic dictatorship 3.) The principle of upholding the leadership of the CPC 4.) The principle of upholding Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism)
While it is unfair to compare this emphasis to Lenin’s New Economic Policy, its origins lie in a similar background and have grown to become much more. Mao himself had mentioned the transformation of a capitalist economy in to an interlinked, mixed form that would uphold a socialist character, and therefore have heavy emphasis on furthering the development of a socialist mode of production. The material conditions that arose from feudalism required such a phase, and now, neoliberalism has for better or worse turned it in to necessity. Certain joint enterprises have come in to existence since, with privatization ultimately ruling a large portion of the economy, but assuming a socialist character. On first glance this may sound as if there has been a contradiction of sorts, however Chen Yun described this economic transformation in the context of socialist construction quite succinctly:
“The changeover from capitalist enterprises to joint state-private enterprises is a fundamental change of ownership, the change from capitalist
ownership to socialist ownership. This transformation has resulted in basic
changes in all aspects of relationship within joint state-private enterprises. In
1952, following the struggle waged in all private enterprises against the “five
evils” of bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts and stealing of economic information, it became the rule in
every capitalist enterprise for the workers to supervise production and for the
trade unions to enjoy considerable power over management. Prior to the
changeover to joint state-private enterprises, such supervision was necessary
and beneficial for production in capitalist enterprises and for their transformation. Now that these enterprises have been converted into joint state private enterprises, the working class should, instead of merely supervising their own production, take a further step forward by facilitating direct management by the state, which is led by the working class. Of course, in managing these enterprises, the state must rely on workers and office
employees, promoting those who are experienced and competent to positions
of leadership and to other administrative jobs. The state must also improve
and vigorously enforce the various systems of democratic management within
enterprises. The change in the role of workers from that of supervising
production to sharing the responsibilities of production management with
state representatives appointed by government organs does not constitute a
decrease or setback in the workers’ power to manage joint state-private
enterprises; rather, it is an increase and a step forward. As to the capitalists
and their representatives, whatever position or authority they may still retain
in the joint state-private enterprises will differ fundamentally from what it
was prior to the changeover. Prior to the changeover they owned the property
and had the right to manage the enterprise and its personnel. After the
changeover, the ownership of enterprises changed hands. However, since the
right to own private property has not been entirely abolished, the capitalists
can still draw fixed interest on their capital for a certain period of time. Apart
from this, the right to manage the enterprise and its personnel no longer
belongs to the capitalists, but to the state’s specialized companies. The
position and authority which capitalists and their representatives still enjoy
in joint state-private enterprises is very different from the rights they had
prior to the changeover. The position and authority given to them by the
state is the same as what is given to ordinary technical personnel or
managerial staff. It is given to them not as capitalists, but as public servants
working for the state.” (Chen Yun Selected Works Vol. III, P. 13)
The Bolsheviks had maintained that the economy could only assume a socialist character in the first place by having state-run production circulate directly in to the state’s central authority and tasking the collection of surplus to ensure proper distribution of goods to the population. They believed that by taking on this method, they could sway the peasantry to move on from any proclivity towards the market. This turned out for the worst however, as the country was still recovering from war, bringing futility to this project. The Kronstadt sailors and many other forces seen as counter-revolution, despite many having had sentiments for revolution and change, called for freedom of trade and exchange. An alliance seemed futile to many factions, but Lenin took these issues with great consideration.
China succeeded with these problems by introducing new democracy, uniting classes with revolutionary tendencies and meeting each of their needs. This influence is still seen in China today with the NPC, many comprising the domestic bourgeoise have their say within the governance of society, however the party organs ensure the distinctions of class rule are clear. With the furthering of economic decentralization along with the continued planning from the state, China has achieved unbelievable stability and unity.
Consequently as part of the reform and opening up, China has created a bi-directional flow between exporting production, to accepting foreign investments, which have also played a part in raising financial wealth and development. It has encouraged the acceleration of building productive forces within the cage, the bird now flying within it, desperately needing to consume and nourish itself to mature and grow. Through joint ventures of public and private enterprise it has allowed the CPC to ensure meeting its goal, but through means of encouraging competition and edge.
“We have opened 14 large and medium-sized coastal cities. We welcome foreign investment and advanced techniques. Management is also a technique. Will they undermine our socialism? Not likely, because the socialist sector is the mainstay of our economy. Our socialist economic base is so huge that it can absorb tens and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of foreign funds without being shaken. Foreign investment will doubtless serve as a major supplement in the building of socialism in our country. And as things stand now, that supplement is indispensable. Naturally, some problems will arise in the wake of foreign investment. But its negative impact will be far less significant than the positive use we can make of it to accelerate our development. It may entail a slight risk, but not much.” -Deng Xiaoping (Building a Socialism with a Specifically Chinese Character, June 30, 1984)
By taking on this policy, it has also shaken many cold war hostilities. General Secretary Xi Jinping has greatly continued the last few decades tradition of upholding multilateralism and peaceful co-existence, and has inspired many countries in Africa and Asia to follow suit on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. This has of course come across as a threat to the United States, with its official posture being in opposition of what it sees as “economic and political hegemony.” The US politicians have swayed the western lefts positions as well, with the word “social-imperialism” and “debt-traps” often coming to mind, when in truth, most of the world economy regardless of political character shares these same qualities. Rather than forcing countries in to extracting surplus in the name of super profits such as the west has done since the dawn of capitalism, China has sought to create positive, no strings attached friendships and solidarity, providing infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road initiative to their partners, not in the hopes to require payment and create debt, but that through their successes creating successful trade agreements that benefit both parties in the long run.
Aside from economic policies, the CPC has also fixed much of the damage done to the environment through mass reforestation programs in the Gobi desert and throughout cities, also bringing on new architectural designs that would allow ecosystems to heal in some respects and bring down carbon missions drastically. China has also strengthened its ethnic and cultural policies, encouraging minorities to flourish and grow within frameworks of greater autonomy. Despite the onslaught of propaganda spending from the National Endowment for Democracy and sister programs that descended from the cold war USIA such as Radio Free Asia, and the narrative of “genocide,” China has brought regions such as Xinjiang in to the spotlight as the shining stars of their nation, responsible for pushing the country in the necessary direction with grassroots decision-making from cadres fundamentally transforming the economic and political atmosphere along socialist guidelines.
Socialist construction can be arduous. It is not a task for the faint of heart, but its results are rewarding. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has possibly created the next domino effect in geopolitics, with many countries piling on to the bandwagon to join this new era, and chiefly one in which communism will be an achievable goal, rather than a hopeless dream.
“According to Marxism, communist society is based on material abundance. Only when there is material abundance can the principle of a communist society — that is, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ be applied. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Of course, it covers a very long historical period.
The main task in the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces, keep increasing the material wealth of society, steadily improve the life of the people and create material conditions for the advent of a communist society. There can be no communism with pauperism, or socialism with pauperism.
So to get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean. Wealth in a socialist society belongs to the people. To get rich in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people. The principles of socialism are: first, development of production and second, common prosperity. We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first, for the purpose of achieving common prosperity faster. That is why our policy will not lead to polarization, to a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” -Deng Xiaoping
