In response to Mark Selden's posting (4/13):
Though we disagree on some(!) specifics, we seem to agree that the various
Chinese reforms produced growth (output, incomes, etc.) with uneven
benefits (urban/rural, rich/poor) and associated problems
(regional/sectoral stagnation, environmental degradation). We also agree
that a new "great leap forward", wouldn't be. I'm not interested in
defending/restoring the old "system". I also agree that China won't fit
neatly into a box labelled capitalism or socialism. No place/time
does/has.
We do have some differences worth mentioning. I don't think the "reforms"
were of a piece; perhaps that's how I confused Mark. We agree about the
reforms in the countryside. Let's say their effects dissipated by 1984.
Another set (speaking very loosely) is responsible for the late 80's (pause
for austerity) early 90's growth surge. These reforms concerned (in
general) property forms, commodity exchange, efficiency, state
responsibilities, foreign (economic) interventions, etc. They were
concentrated, first, in coastal cities (especially those near Hong Kong).
Their effects have been many, complex and specific to place and time. My
points concerned a subset of effects: 100s of millions of Chinese are
being separated from direct access (collective, state or
"ancient"--Gabriel&Martin) to means of production and from guarantees of
income (however meager) and are now forced to sell their labor-power as a
commodity in order to purchase the commodities that they need to survive.
I'm not sure what the _world's_ population was at mid-19th century, but 1
billion plus Chinese are currently experiencing, suddenly, changes not
unlike those addressed in Capital (I know, trucks and tractors, not sheep).
How do we define the processes that constitute capitalism? How do we
understand their effects in specific historical contexts? What are some of
the international consequences of massive transitions to capitalist
relations? In other words, I think that important connections exist
between the China (or NAFTA, etc.) issues, the LTV-Capital issues, and the
"domestic" Northamerican issues (employment, income) to which those like
Sally Lerner refer. For example, what effects do you (pen-lers) think
that the insertion of 500M additional wage-laborers into the world economy
(China's model is export oriented) by the year 2000 might have on...? Does
it matter, in this context, if China has full employment, versus 300M
un-underemployed? How can an export oriented model produce 100sM jobs over
a relatively short period?
Joseph E. Medley
Economics
University of Southern Maine
Portland, Maine 04103
(207)-780-4293
