[was: RE: [PEN-L:29624] RE: Re: Stiglitz interview_Character of PRC]
Thanks for the detailed exposition. Two points:
a) it's true that capitalism wasn't abolished in England, but the reforms weren't "fictitious." The social-democratic managment of capitalism did have some benefits to the working class (though you should ask a Brit, not me), though I think this was based on the power of the working class, not on the wisdom of the Labour Party leaders.
b) Your history of China seems to be from the point of view of the CP of China. But isn't it a mistake, as Marx & Engels point out in the GERMAN IDEOLOGY, to judge anyone by their self-perception? Was the Chinese government "democratic" by some objective standard, for example? was it really anything like a "dictatorship of the proletariat" if it was rule by a minority party? As a percentage of the whole population, the proletariat was pretty small at the time of the Chinese revolution.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Hari Kumar
ORIGINAL MESSAGES:
1) Ken writes: " I don't understand what is meant by describing China
as "postcapitalist"...
2) JD Replies: "The mode of production of the People's Republic was
"post-capitalist" in the sense that it came after the Nationalist
period, which exhibited a mixture of capitalism and the Tributary mode
of production. But it was also pre-capitalist, in that capitalism is
rapidly taking hold.
The PRC was collectivist, because the state owned the means of
production. Whether or not that's socialism depends on your definition.
COMMENTS:
Basically, I agree with the sense of what Ken is asking (at least as I
interpret him). According to Liu Shao Ci (then NOT in conflict with Mao)
the "national capitalists" joined into joint state-private ventures with
"fanfare of gongs and drums". According to Kuan Ta-tung:, it was cymbals
& drums - small difference
"Why were there increasing numbers of capitalists who petitioned of
their own free will to have their enterprise changed over to
joint-state-private operation? The answer lay in the fact that the
superiority of many state-private enterprises became more and more
obvious in their tremendous development.... profits were
increasing...... The capitalists paraded, with the beating of cymbals &
drums while sending in their petitions for the change-over in their
enterprises";
Kuan Ta-tung: "The Socialist Transformation of Capitalist Industry &
Commerce in China"; Peking; 1966; p. 78-9; 84.
If this was a "collectivist" society justifying the term
post-capitalist" - why does the term NOT apply to Britain post-1945?
In Britain the MAJORITY of the capitalists agreed to the state
nationalisation of large chunks of the industries becasue:
i) They were well compensated if they were expropriated;
ii) The minority interests of the capitalist were expropriated in the
interest of the larger WHOLE class that was in need of the general
industries & could/would not 'be held to ransom' for a sectional
capitalist interest;
iii) Post 1945 - it was CRITICAL to ward off the mass discontent
post-war, with even military revolts in the British army - with a
fictitious 'socialism'.
That is the short comment......... A longer section below for those
interested, with substantive quotation.
QUIET PAUSE FOR THOSE LEAVING THE ROOM................SLAM! BANG!
THE LONG COMMENT.........
To substantiate the key aspects of the PRC end, I offer some key
extracts of Bland's books (see
http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/China/historyofmaopt2.html ) on
Maoist revisionist 'socialism':
(1) IT si true that the COMPRADOR capital was expropriated:
"THE NATIONALISATION OF BUREAUCRAT-CAPITAL (1949-50)
In 1949-50, shortly after the establishment of the People's Republic of
China,
"The People's Government confiscated all the enterprises operated by
bureaucrat-capital. . . . These enterprises, including the Japanese,
German and Italian concerns in China taken over by the Kuomintang
government following the victory of the War of Resistance to Japanese
Aggression, were turned into . . . state-owned enterprises".
(Liu Shao-chi: 'Political Report of the CC of the CPC to the 8th
National Congress of the Party' (September 1956) (hereafter listed as
'Liu Shao-chi (1956)'; Peking; 1956; p 12).
(2) BUT National Capital" so called: Was NOT expropriated:
"Comprador bourgeois other than bureaucrat-capitalists and a few
designated war criminals were treated as national bourgeois:
"Those capitalists who were independent of the Kuomintang monopolists
retained their enterprises." (John & Elsie Collier: 'China's Socialist
Revolution'; London; 1973; p. 30)."
3) Moreover LANDLORDS were expropriated BUT NOT the "rich peasantry":
Thus, declared Mao, the Party's policy:
"Should be one of maintaining the rich peasant economy in order to
facilitate the early rehabilitation of rural production and the better
to isolate the landlords."
(Mao Tse-tung: 'Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the
Nation's Financial and Economic Situation' (June 1950), in: 'Selected
Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 29).
In June 1950, the Central Committee of the Party presented the draft of
an 'Agrarian Reform Law':
"To the 2nd Session of the First National Committee of the Chinese
People's Political Consultative Conference. . . . After it had been
discussed and endorsed by the session, the Central People's Government
Council approved the draft. On June 30 of the same year, Mao Tse-tung,
Chairman of the Central People's Government, promulgated the 'Agrarian
Reform Law of the People's Republic of China'."
(Note to: Mao Tse-tung: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.
40).
The Effect of the Land Reform
The land reform legislation brought about:
"Far-reaching modifications in the shape of society in the countryside".
(Jacques Guillermaz: 'The Chinese Communist Party in Power: 1949-1976';
Folkestone; 1976; p. 28-29).
It:
"Succeeded in redistributing about 43% of China's cultivated land to
about 60% of the rural population".
(Frederick C. Teiwes: 'Establishment and Consolidation of the New
Regime', in: Roderick MacFarquahar & John K. Fairbank (Eds.): 'The
Cambridge History of China', Volume 14: 'The People's Republic, Part 1:
The Emergence of Revolutionary China: 1949-1965' (hereafter listed as
'Fredrick C. Teiwes (1987)'); Cambridge; 1987; p. 87).
It had the effect of:
"Freeing millions of peasants of the burden of paying rent to landlords.
.
300 million poor peasants had their plots of land enlarged and instead
of being tenant farmers . . became . . . owners of small independent
holdings."
(Jacques Guillermaz: op. cit.; p. 26).
In fact:
"The local landlord gentry was destroyed".
(Franz Schurmann: 'Peasants', in: Franz Schurmann & Orville Schell
(Eds.): 'Communist China: Revolutionary Reconstruction and International
Confrontation: 1949-1966'; Harmondsworth; 1977; p. 170).
in:
"One of the greatest social revolutions of modern times."
(Franz Schurmann: ibid.; p. 169).
and, in the rural areas:
"China became a country of small owner-cultivators".
(Edward L. Wheelwright & Bruce McFarlane: 'The Chinese Road to
Socialism: Economics of the Cultural Revolution'; Harmondsworth; 1973;
p., 34).
However:
"Land belonging to rich peasants was 'protected' (Article 6)".
(Jacques Guillermaz: op. cit.; p. 26).
The land reform had been:
"completed by 1952".
(Edward L. Wheelwright & Bruce McFarlane: op. cit.; p. 33).
(4) Mao EXPLICITLY stated that he was creating a state of "State
Capitalism" - & only later as class struggles heated up - under pressure
he changed the designation into "socialism". Moreover, the transition
from State Cpatialsim to socialism was envisaged to take place "over a
very long period of time" - & by "peaceful means":
"THE CHINESE REVISIONISTS SIMPLY DECLARED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF
STATE INFLUENCE IN THE ECONOMY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC, THIS ECONOMY
WAS ONE OF STATE CAPITALISM:
"The present-day capitalist economy in China is . . . a state-capitalist
economy."
(Mao Tse-tung: 'On State Capitalism' (July 1953), in: 'Selected Works',
Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 101).
AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
IN THE STATE, IT WAS A STATE-CAPITALIST ECONOMY OF A NEW TYPE:
"The present-day capitalist economy in China a capitalist ecoomy which
for the most part is under the control of the People's Government.. . .
It is . . . a state-capitalist economy of a new type."
(Mao Tse-tung: ibid.; p. 101).
WHICH HAD, 'TO A VERY GREAT EXTENT', A SOCIALIST CHARACTER:
"This state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist
character to a very great extent."
(Mao Tse-tung: ibid,; p. 101).
THUS, THIS STATE CAPITALISM AND THIS NEW-DEMOCRATIC STATE ARE PRESENTED
BY THE CHINESE REVISIONISTS AS 'VEHICLES FOR THE TRANSITION TO
SOCIALISM':
"The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished
through state capitalism".
(Mao Tse-tung: 'The Only Road for the Transformation of Capitalist
Industry and Commerce' (September 1953), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5;
Peking; 1977; p. 112).
"We can proceed with our step-by-step socialist transformation by means
of the existing machinery of state".
(Liu Shao-chi: 'Report on the Draft Constitution of the People's
Republic of China' (September 1954); Peking; 1962; p. 26).
THIS TRANSITION CAN, IN THE CASE OF CHINA, BE GRADUAL:
"State capitalism in various forms is to be put into practice gradually
so as to attain socialist ownership by the whole people".
(Mao Tse-tung: 'On the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic of
China (June 1954), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.
143).
CARRIED OUT OVER A RELATIVELY LONG PERIOD OF TIME:
"The socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce by the
state will be gradually realised over a relatively long period of time,
through various forms of state capitalism".
(Liu Shao-chi: 'Report on the Draft Constitution of the People's
Republic of China'; Peking; 1962; p. 26).
"The period of transition from capitalism to socialism . . . will cover
roughly eighteen years".
(Mao Tse-tung: Preface 1 to 'Socialist Upsurge in China's Countryside'
(September 1955), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 235).
AND 'PEACEFUL':
"To achieve socialism through state capitalism . . . is a peaceful means
of transition".
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 24).
"Under conditions obtaining in this country, the exploiting class will
be completely eliminated by peaceful means."
(Kuan Ta-tung: 'The Socialist Transformation of Capitalist Industry and
Commerce in China'; Peking; 1960; p. 111).
Furthermore, Marxism-Leninism defines the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" as a state in which the proletariat does not share
political power with any other class and in which the Communist Party
does not share leadership with any other party:
"The class of proletarians . . . does not and cannot share power with
other classes. .
The party of the proletariat, the Party of the Communists. . . does not
and cannot share leadership with other parties".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'Concerning Questions of Leninism' (January 1926), in:
'Works', Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; p. 27, 28).
BUT THE 'NEW-DEMOCRATIC' STATE OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA WAS
DEFINED AS 'A STATE OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE', i.e., ONE IN WHICH THE
NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND THE COMPRADOR BOURGEOISIE SHARE IN POLITICAL
POWER:
"After the founding of the People's Republic, . . . representatives of
the national bourgeoisie and its parties have been taking part in the
organs of our state".
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.;p. 61).
"Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship. . . . The aim of this
dictatorship is to protect all our people. . . . Who is to exercise this
dictatorship? . . . The entire people".
(Mao Tse-tung: 'On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the
People' (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977;
p. 387).
FURTHERMORE, THE 'NEW-DEMOCRATIC' STATE OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA WAS DEFINED AS A STATE IN WHICH THE COMMUNIST PARTY SHARES
LEADERSHIP WITH OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES:
"Which is better, to have just one party or several? As we see it now,
it's perhaps better to have several parties . . . . It means long-term
coexistence and mutual supervision
(Mao Tse-tung: 'On the Ten Great Relationships' (April 1956), in:
'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 296),
"Why should the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democratic parties be
allowed to exist side by side with the party of the working class over a
long period of time? Because we have no reason for not adopting the
policy of long-term coexistence with all those political parties."
(Mao Tse-tung: 'On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the
People' (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977;
p. 413).
ACCORDING TO THE CHINESE REVISIONISTS, 'SOCIALISM' IN CHINA COULD BE
ACHIEVED, NOT BY NATIONALISATION OF THE PRINCIPAL MEANS OF PRODUCTION,
BUT BY THE FORMATION OF JOINT STATE-PRIVATE ENTERPRISES IN WHICH THE
STATE INVESTS AND TO WHICH IT ASSIGNS PERSONNEL TO SHARE IN MANAGEMENT
WITH THE CAPITALISTS:
"A joint state-private enterprise is one in which the state invests and
to which it assigns personnel to share in management with the
capitalists".
(Kuan Ta-tung: op. cit.; p. 75).
ACCORDING TO ThE CHINESE REVISIONISTS, IN THE COURSE OF THIS 'SOCIALIST
TRANSFORMATION' CAPITALISTS WILL GRADUALLY BE 'REMOULDED' INTO WORKING
PEOPLE:
"In the course of bringing about the socialist transformation of
capitalist industry and commerce, . . . educational measures are adopted
to remould the capitalists gradually , . . into working people".
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 25).
THE PROBLEM OF ThE DICTATORSHIP OF ThE PROLETARIAT WAS EASILY SOLVED BY
THE CHINESE REVISIONISTS. THEY SIMPLY DECLARED THAT THE NEW-DEMOCRATIC
STATE, THE JOINT DICTATORSHIP OF SEVERAL CLASSES, WAS THE DICTATORSHIP
OF THE PROLETARIAT. Even though:
"Representatives of the national bourgeoisie and its parties have been
taking part in the organs of our state",
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): ibid.; p. 61).
": . our state . . . is a dictatorship of the proletariat in essence".
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 61).
"Our state organs are organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
(Mao Tse-tung: Speech at the 2nd Plenum of the 8th Central Commitee of
the CPC (November 1956),in: 'Seleted Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.
338).
(5) There ensued the process of creating "pseudo-socialist" structures -
rahter liek the LP in the UK:
Pseudo-Socialism in Industry and Commerce
In the summer of 1955, a programme began:
"For the 'socialist transformation' of industry and commerce".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 16; 1994; p. 145).
In the case of industry and commerce, however, this 'socialist
transformation' followed the pseudo-socialist lines already described
(pages 43-46).
"Capitalist industry and commerce in the country has, by and large, come
under joint state-private operation."
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 12)
The new-democratic state maintained the 'unreasonably high' salaries
which were being received by the capitalists involved:
"Even the unreasonably high salaries enjoyed by many of the capitalists
and agents in these enterprises were continued after the changeover."
(Kuan Ta-tung: op. cit.; p. 87).
and paid the capitalists a guaranteed rate of interest on their
investments, thus maintaining exploitation of the workers:
"A fixed rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment
of the capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises. Irrespective
of locality and trade, the interest was fixed at a rate of 5% per annum
. thus maintaining exploitation."
(Kuan Ta-tung: ibid.; p. 86-87, 91).
Indeed, the amount of profit being made increased significantly:
"Statistics of 64 factories in various parts of China which had gone
over to joint operation earlier than others revealed that their profits
were increasing. Taking their profit in 1950 as 100, it was 113 in 1951,
228 in 1952, and 306 in 1953". .
(Kuan Ta-tung: ibid.; p. 78, 91).
Not unnaturally, the capitalists welcomed this spurious socialism:
'Our bourgeoisie has heralded its acceptance of socialist transformation
with a fanfare of gongs and drums.'
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 59).
and were happy to be 'remoulded' by 'educational measures' into 'working
people':
"While the enterprises are being transformed, educational measures are
adopted to remould the capitalists gradually . . . into working people".
(Liu Shao~hi (1956): op. cit.; p. 25).
Thus, Liu Shao-chi was able to tell the 8th National Congress of the SPC
in September 1956 truthfully that
"Capitalist industry and commerce in the country has, by and large, come
under joint state-private operation."
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 12).
and untruthfully that:
"We have now achieved a decisive victory in the socialist transformation
of . . . capitalist industry and commerce."
(Liu Shao-chi (1956): op. cit.; p. 11.
---------------END ____________________
