China has markets, while maintaining public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy and working class control of the state. Per Mao, the principal aspect of something, what is rising and dominant within it, is its nature. From Mao’s On Contradiction:
As we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, in any given contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.
China is socialist. What Xi Jinping is saying here is that at the present moment markets are a useful tool, as China develops markets will gradually centralize and lose effectiveness, giving way to the planned sector. Their officials call it a socialist market economy, because that’s what best describes it. Here’s Xi Jinping, in 2013:
First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine.
…
In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. This includes building a socialist market economy; socialist democratic politics; advanced socialist culture; socialist civil harmony and ecology; all-around human development; the gradual realization of common prosperity for all people; a rich, strong, democratic and harmonious socialist modern state under the leadership of the CPC with economic construction as the center; adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles; insisting on Reform and Opening Up; and the liberation and development of the productive forces. It includes adhering to the system of People’s Congresses; the system of multi-party cooperation under the leadership of the CPC; the systems of national autonomy at the regional level and mass autonomy at the grassroots level; the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics; and the basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and a variety of auxiliary ownership systems develop alongside. These goals embody the basic principles of scientific socialism under our current historical conditions. Adherence to the socialist road demands that we fulfill them.
Capitalism is not markets, but it is also not determined by simple ratio of private property to public, nor is a system with X% private and Y% public X% capitalist and Y% socialist. Dialectics rejects these frames of analysis as metaphysics. What matters is what is principle, what is rising and dominating the economy. In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned.
The private sector in China is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest small and medium firms. Despite making up a sizable portion of GDP, these do not control the economy, nor direct its trajectory. The basis of communist production is in large industry, not just collectivizing even the small firms before markets have centralized them. This does not mean it is necessary for private property to exist to develop socialized production, the DPRK is a good example of this (though they have special economic zones like Rason). However, it does mean that by maintaining public ownership of the large firms and key industries, socialism can be maintained. China’s socialism is the socialism suited for China.
The problem with looking at simple ratio, is that this makes no analysis of how power is distributed, what tendencies are rising and which are dying away. This views production and distribution not as something that changes in identity as time moves forward, but instead as a substance in flux. In this way, it is metaphysical. When accurately contextualizing the relationship between public and private in China, it is the public sector that holds all of the power, that absorbs the private over time as the private grows and develops. Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
Harkening back to Cheng Enfu’s diagram, they are in the developing and intermediate stages of socialism. They are not advanced in socialism, and likely will not be for a while. Their progress is thanks to socialism, however, built by Mao Zedong and the CPC, carried to today and interated upon as new conditions arise and new contradictions form.
Firstly i want to thank you for giving such a detailed breakdown. I’m embarrassed I wasn’t able to give one.
Secondly, Im always struck by how surprisingly articulate Xi is when his full quotes are given. I think he’s less passionate than Mao or Jiang (not that thats a bad thing, just that in the western media hes not given as much airtime), but hes certainly a good logician and communicator. I need to read governance of China again
Thank you for doing such a detailed breakdown on it. This is the kind of post I wanted to link but couldn’t find in my bookmarks (I’m sure there have been similar posts in the past, but was not finding them). I’m bookmarking this one for the future.
Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
In the primary stage of socialism - officially. Most critiques of the PRC from the left, particularly from Maoists hinge on the idea that China could be much further down the socialist pipeline than they are right now given that they are a middle income economy with comparatively advanced productive forces. Historically, higher stages of socialism were achieved in the Soviet Union than China has in a considerably less amount of time. Of course, you couldn’t directly compare the material conditions of Czechoslovakia to a country as large and diverse as China.
The existence of markets and a nascent capitalist class in the base eventually led to the collapse of the largest socialist project to-date, the Soviet Union.
The existence of markets and a nascent capitalist class in the base eventually led to the collapse of the largest socialist project to-date, the Soviet Union.
This is not accurate and it is not a very helpful explanation on why the USSR collapsed for anyone interested. A better explanation is to study the Perestroika and Glasnost reform that severely weakened the USSR state and allowed liberalism to blend in. Great analysis quoted in Lemmygrad cover this and more:
It is important to correctly identify what happened. Otherwise, we will have a misleading interpretation that could lead us to mistakes even in our agitation.
It’s best to think of the CPC’s decision to go at the pace they have as a decision with tradeoffs. While they could have a larger share of public ownership, they would be giving up their advantageous position as one of the most important countries in global trade, a position that has helped them facilitate south-south trade and undermine imperialism. Importantly, the soviet union’s reforms fractured the system and weakened state power, while the PRC’s did not. The PRC maintained full state control of the large firms and key industries, and did not undermine CPC power.
In other words, the soviet union’s house burned down because they did not adequately fireproof their housing, as they did not think it necessary while running on electric power. The PRC on the other hand used gas heating and electric power, and fireproofed their house as they saw what happened to the soviet union.
China has markets, while maintaining public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy and working class control of the state. Per Mao, the principal aspect of something, what is rising and dominant within it, is its nature. From Mao’s On Contradiction:
China is socialist. What Xi Jinping is saying here is that at the present moment markets are a useful tool, as China develops markets will gradually centralize and lose effectiveness, giving way to the planned sector. Their officials call it a socialist market economy, because that’s what best describes it. Here’s Xi Jinping, in 2013:
Capitalism is not markets, but it is also not determined by simple ratio of private property to public, nor is a system with X% private and Y% public X% capitalist and Y% socialist. Dialectics rejects these frames of analysis as metaphysics. What matters is what is principle, what is rising and dominating the economy. In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned.
The private sector in China is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest small and medium firms. Despite making up a sizable portion of GDP, these do not control the economy, nor direct its trajectory. The basis of communist production is in large industry, not just collectivizing even the small firms before markets have centralized them. This does not mean it is necessary for private property to exist to develop socialized production, the DPRK is a good example of this (though they have special economic zones like Rason). However, it does mean that by maintaining public ownership of the large firms and key industries, socialism can be maintained. China’s socialism is the socialism suited for China.
The problem with looking at simple ratio, is that this makes no analysis of how power is distributed, what tendencies are rising and which are dying away. This views production and distribution not as something that changes in identity as time moves forward, but instead as a substance in flux. In this way, it is metaphysical. When accurately contextualizing the relationship between public and private in China, it is the public sector that holds all of the power, that absorbs the private over time as the private grows and develops. Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
Harkening back to Cheng Enfu’s diagram, they are in the developing and intermediate stages of socialism. They are not advanced in socialism, and likely will not be for a while. Their progress is thanks to socialism, however, built by Mao Zedong and the CPC, carried to today and interated upon as new conditions arise and new contradictions form.
Firstly i want to thank you for giving such a detailed breakdown. I’m embarrassed I wasn’t able to give one.
Secondly, Im always struck by how surprisingly articulate Xi is when his full quotes are given. I think he’s less passionate than Mao or Jiang (not that thats a bad thing, just that in the western media hes not given as much airtime), but hes certainly a good logician and communicator. I need to read governance of China again
No worries! And yep, Xi Jinping is very articulate. I liked reading how people felt about him as a bit bland, but extremely driven:
Women thought Xi was boring and yet he’s married to a superstar. What did they mean by this?
Honestly no clue, haha. Might be his quiet and firm personality being seen as boring at first glance?
What did the professor mean by that? Xi Jinping seems pretty clean for a politician to me.
Pretty sure that’s an internal assessment, not the professor saying that.
Thank you for doing such a detailed breakdown on it. This is the kind of post I wanted to link but couldn’t find in my bookmarks (I’m sure there have been similar posts in the past, but was not finding them). I’m bookmarking this one for the future.
Glad you enjoyed it! If you like that comment, you might want to read this exchange, where the other party had a far more developed analysis than “China imperialist.” Still something I disagree with, but by being a more developed opinion it had more to engage with and reveal more.
In the primary stage of socialism - officially. Most critiques of the PRC from the left, particularly from Maoists hinge on the idea that China could be much further down the socialist pipeline than they are right now given that they are a middle income economy with comparatively advanced productive forces. Historically, higher stages of socialism were achieved in the Soviet Union than China has in a considerably less amount of time. Of course, you couldn’t directly compare the material conditions of Czechoslovakia to a country as large and diverse as China.
The existence of markets and a nascent capitalist class in the base eventually led to the collapse of the largest socialist project to-date, the Soviet Union.
This is not accurate and it is not a very helpful explanation on why the USSR collapsed for anyone interested. A better explanation is to study the Perestroika and Glasnost reform that severely weakened the USSR state and allowed liberalism to blend in. Great analysis quoted in Lemmygrad cover this and more:
It is important to correctly identify what happened. Otherwise, we will have a misleading interpretation that could lead us to mistakes even in our agitation.
It’s best to think of the CPC’s decision to go at the pace they have as a decision with tradeoffs. While they could have a larger share of public ownership, they would be giving up their advantageous position as one of the most important countries in global trade, a position that has helped them facilitate south-south trade and undermine imperialism. Importantly, the soviet union’s reforms fractured the system and weakened state power, while the PRC’s did not. The PRC maintained full state control of the large firms and key industries, and did not undermine CPC power.
In other words, the soviet union’s house burned down because they did not adequately fireproof their housing, as they did not think it necessary while running on electric power. The PRC on the other hand used gas heating and electric power, and fireproofed their house as they saw what happened to the soviet union.