ken hanly wrote: > I do not see China's path as socialist at all or > likely to lead to socialism. While Maoist China may > not have been socialist in terms of some ideal > nevertheless the actually existing socialism of Mao > certainly did socialise most of the instruments of > production distribution and exchange and did not > produce solely on the basis of profit. The present > regime has degraded or replaced socialist economic > mechanisms through privatisation and market mechnisms > with the results noted by Hart-Landsberg and Burkett. > > As for China being bureaucratic socialism, Mao > realised the problem and tried to reduce the power of > the bureaucracy but was ultimately unsuccessful and > the bureaucrats sucessfully struck back. The handful > of capitalist roaders are now firmly at the helm but > they have grown in numbers, strength, and riches.
a problem with the category "bureaucratic socialism" (or better, "bureaucratic collectivism") is that there are at least two different meanings to the word "bureaucracy." The basic idea is that though the means of production were collectively owned by the state, it's not the peasants or workers who owned the state. Rather, it was the "bureaucracy." That could mean either the planning apparatus or the CP (or a combination of the two). In neither case does this theory refer to the Weberian concept of ideal bureaucracy. In addition, just as the capitalists have factions, so does the bureaucracy. The Mao faction was fighting the Zhou faction, etc. Both groups were trying to control the economy and the society from above. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
