At the invitation of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez attended the 14th World Socialism Forum, held in Beijing from 9-10 September 2024. The theme of this year’s forum was Current changes in the world and our times, and addressed the possibilities for furthering the cause of … Continue reading Those that stand for socialism and peace should build solidarity with China
I agree with all of what the article says about building solidarity instead of the unjustified and dangerous demonization of China. But I’m not convinced China can still be classified as socialist. I simply don’t know enough though.
Would this be possible if China were just another capitalist country? If the capitalist class – a relatively small group of people that own and deploy capital – dominated political power, would they really allow resources to be directed so consistently to solving the problems of the working people? If so, why doesn’t this happen all over the world? Why haven’t other capitalist countries achieved similar successes in improving people’s lives?
Not sure that argument proves anything, there are other explanations.
Fundamentally any society can either base their wealth on resource extraction or the work of people. China clearly chose the latter, so it makes sense for a “state capitalist” country to invest in education, healthcare, housing because people are what generate wealth, and this is paid back in the future. China is currently reaping those rewards. More wealth to distribute to those in power as well.
It might simply be that China isn’t capitalist long enough for the capitalist class achieving enough long term political power to cannibalize that wealth and undo those advances like they have done in the west.
China could be at a stage the USA was during it’s golden age in the 1960 with the new deal etc. Maybe in a few decades China will fall victim to the same processes of capitalist corrosion. Maybe it’s just a matter of time.
Right now China has more centralized power structures that can make intelligent and rational decisions - unlike neoliberalism. Nobody is in charge of the US any more it’s all just systems and rules and individuals and institutions that draw policy in short term but insane directions.
Also for example renewables is just a good new market to dominate, as well as reducing dependence on the middle east and indirectly undermining the US stranglehold on that. China can sell energy all by itself without relying on US controlled systems. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to see this as smart business strategy.
I’m certainly rooting for China and hope it becomes more open.
Anyway, very interesting article. I guess I should read the book.
The book does a very good job explaining the historical context of how socialism has developed in China, and makes a strong case for why it’s a socialist country today.
It might simply be that China isn’t capitalist long enough for the capitalist class achieving enough long term political power to cannibalize that wealth and undo those advances like they have done in the west.
If this was the case then we’d see China developing in a similar way to actual capitalist countries, such as India. Both China and India started roughly in the same place after gaining independence, but have developed very differently. Here are a few examples of things you wouldn’t see happening under capitalism.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
It’s also worth noting that while state capitalism means that state owned enterprise is still structured similarly to private capitalist enterprise, there is a fundamental difference between the two. The goal of private enterprise is to create profit for the owners through appropriation of the value the labor of the workers creates. On the other hand, the primary goal of the state owned enterprise is to provide social value. In this scenario, the labor of the workers directly benefit society and workers themselves. I would argue that this represents the key difference between capitalist and socialist mode of production.
Thanks for the numbers, state owned share is a really good sign.
On the other hand, the primary goal of the state owned enterprise is to provide social value.
Interesting. I guess even if that wasn’t the goal, the money sort of “has to” actually trickle down. Like even if functionaries siphon off some wealth or it’s spend on stupid project, most of it lands in a pot where it can only be used for… investments or useful things. Even if their goals were nationalistic instead of socialistic. It has nowhere else to go and can’t go off to foreign investors or into some tax haven or just be used for speculative financial games. Or use it to undermine democracy by buying news and social media.
I guess the motivation for functionaries is also different. For plutocrats the “game” is to gain ever more capital and beat the competition and reach a high score. And they fear loosing everything. So even if the state capitalist’s goal was to “create profit through appropriation of the value the labor of the workers creates” they ultimately have to do something useful with it then. Of course it would be in their interest to use it to secure the power of their government.
I agree with all of what the article says about building solidarity instead of the unjustified and dangerous demonization of China. But I’m not convinced China can still be classified as socialist. I simply don’t know enough though.
Not sure that argument proves anything, there are other explanations.
Fundamentally any society can either base their wealth on resource extraction or the work of people. China clearly chose the latter, so it makes sense for a “state capitalist” country to invest in education, healthcare, housing because people are what generate wealth, and this is paid back in the future. China is currently reaping those rewards. More wealth to distribute to those in power as well.
It might simply be that China isn’t capitalist long enough for the capitalist class achieving enough long term political power to cannibalize that wealth and undo those advances like they have done in the west.
China could be at a stage the USA was during it’s golden age in the 1960 with the new deal etc. Maybe in a few decades China will fall victim to the same processes of capitalist corrosion. Maybe it’s just a matter of time.
Right now China has more centralized power structures that can make intelligent and rational decisions - unlike neoliberalism. Nobody is in charge of the US any more it’s all just systems and rules and individuals and institutions that draw policy in short term but insane directions.
Also for example renewables is just a good new market to dominate, as well as reducing dependence on the middle east and indirectly undermining the US stranglehold on that. China can sell energy all by itself without relying on US controlled systems. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to see this as smart business strategy.
I’m certainly rooting for China and hope it becomes more open.
Anyway, very interesting article. I guess I should read the book.
Link to the book on the anarchist library annas-archive.org
The book does a very good job explaining the historical context of how socialism has developed in China, and makes a strong case for why it’s a socialist country today.
If this was the case then we’d see China developing in a similar way to actual capitalist countries, such as India. Both China and India started roughly in the same place after gaining independence, but have developed very differently. Here are a few examples of things you wouldn’t see happening under capitalism.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008
China’s private sector has lost ground as state sector has gained share among top corporations since 2021. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among
It’s also worth noting that while state capitalism means that state owned enterprise is still structured similarly to private capitalist enterprise, there is a fundamental difference between the two. The goal of private enterprise is to create profit for the owners through appropriation of the value the labor of the workers creates. On the other hand, the primary goal of the state owned enterprise is to provide social value. In this scenario, the labor of the workers directly benefit society and workers themselves. I would argue that this represents the key difference between capitalist and socialist mode of production.
Thanks for the numbers, state owned share is a really good sign.
Interesting. I guess even if that wasn’t the goal, the money sort of “has to” actually trickle down. Like even if functionaries siphon off some wealth or it’s spend on stupid project, most of it lands in a pot where it can only be used for… investments or useful things. Even if their goals were nationalistic instead of socialistic. It has nowhere else to go and can’t go off to foreign investors or into some tax haven or just be used for speculative financial games. Or use it to undermine democracy by buying news and social media.
I guess the motivation for functionaries is also different. For plutocrats the “game” is to gain ever more capital and beat the competition and reach a high score. And they fear loosing everything. So even if the state capitalist’s goal was to “create profit through appropriation of the value the labor of the workers creates” they ultimately have to do something useful with it then. Of course it would be in their interest to use it to secure the power of their government.
Exactly, state owned enterprise doesn’t result in capital accumulation which is one of the cardinal problems with capitalism.