Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:54:19 -0800
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] China's Socialist Path (Hart-Landsberg and Paul
Burkett)
And then we have "bureaucratic authoritarianism" in Latin America
throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Here the state played a very important
role in bringing about structural change, albeit limited as in Brazil (to
some extent Peru, Velasco's land reforms included). One manifestion of
this was the Brazilian "miracle." However, as many have pointed out this
was a corporatist model (fascistic politically and technocratic
economically) that included the alliance between domestic big capital,
organized labor, and the state. Clearly BA was working at the behest of
the capitalist class (and the labor aristocracy). To what extent does the
Chinese model mirror some of these elements might be an interesting
question, as opposed whether its socialist or capitalist?
Cheers, Anthony
--------------------------
Anthony P. D'Costa
Professor of Indian Studies
Asia Research Centre
Copenhagen Business School
Porcelaenshaven 24, 3
DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph: +45 3815 2572
On 2/22/08, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
