When Mark Selden writes: >Anthony D'Costa finds it helpful to describe what is happening in Asia as >"capitalist development in a marxist sense" and "imperialism (export of >capital)." There is plenty of "capitalism" and plenty of export of capital >going on. . . yet these categories alone don't help much to solve the >riddle: why East Asia? why not, say, Latin America or North America? Nor, >imo, do they capture what is most interesting and distinctive about East >Asia pivoting on China and its relations with other economies. He casts Anthony's contribution in the wrong light. Do these categories *alone* add much? Probably not. Can they *contribute* to an understanding? I think so. Similarly I think Mark is too hasty when he concludes: >neither "capitalism" nor "socialism" help >much to clarify what is going on in China He contends: >The most dynamic sectors of the Chinese economy are found not in the cities >but in the countryside. Their form, the township and village enterprises >does not readily accommodate notions of socialism or capitalism: it is >redistributive, in the sense that these enterprises often are owned and run >by county, township or village government; but they are very much in the >market, subject to bankruptcy and the discipline of a Chinese style law of >value or, if you prefer, hard budget constraints; many are also hybrid >forms which include private as well as foreign capital cheek by jowl with >local government. Perhaps "countryside," like "capitalism," requires greater specification to be a really helpful in this discussion. I believe that the rapid growth of industry in the countryside, especially if we are talking about "vast gains in employment and income," is concentrated in certain parts of the countryside: More along the coast than inland, closer to transport hubs than dispersed to the far reaches of the country, more likely to be near than far from major cities and especially, closer to sites of foreign capital (e.g., Hong Kong) than not. To turn a technique, these differences cannot be explained by the concepts rural and urban, alone. Similarly, the form of enterprise (T/VE) is very important, but it too, is not independent of the context in which it is embedded. I mean that, directly and indirectly, the export market is a driving force behind the rapid development of these firms. They are often linked, through joint ventures, subcontracting, technology transfers, etc., to larger networks of foreign firms. Finally these firms owe a portion of their success in the larger Chinese and world economies to their ability to hire low cost *wage* labor, purchase inputs through competitive markets (where as long as they have the cash they can get the needed goods), appropriate land and other means for their exclusive use and benefit (with some judiciously distributed "rents" to "public" officials) and independently operate to pursue and keep profits. Something more than just the form of ownership is important here. In other words, I see some room to talk about capitalism, but not too generally or uncritically, and I see some benefit to discuss imperialism, albeit in new forms and with a greater sense of subtlety. Isn't East Asia (especially China) too integrated(albeit in unique ways) into the world capitalist economy to suspect otherwise? Regards, Joseph E. Medley Economics University of Southern Maine Portland, Maine 04103 (207)-780-4293
